[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

[Andreas Nettsträter]

> Side point: if this Germany warranty disclaimer thing is the primary impetus of this license, why is the name "Open Logistics License"?  
> Why not call it what it is intended to be: "Extra Warranty Disclaimer for Germany License"?
> What part of the license has to do with opening the logistics of a project?

The license is called Open Logistics License because it was authored by the Open Logistics Foundation (https://openlogisticsfoundation.org/), like EPL from Eclipse. 

Regards
Andreas

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> Im Auftrag von Bradley M. Kuhn
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2022 19:34
An: 'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

McCoy Smith wrote:
> I'm not a German attorney, but it's my understanding that certain 
> warranties or liabilities cannot be disclaimed in German law. This is 
> the same in other law, including the US. The end result of most FOSS 
> licenses is they have the effect of disclaiming whatever under the 
> local law can be disclaimed, but the local law will impose liabilities 
> where they cannot be disclaimed.

Indeed.  This has been an issue regularly discussed about FOSS licenses since their inception - I remember such discussions about this as far back as 1997.
Of course FOSS licenses can't disclaim what one cannot disclaim in a given jurisdiction.  That's why every good FOSS license already tries very hard to disclaim the maximum permitted by jurisdiction.  If there is a bug in those "get to the maximum disclaimable under this law" text, it should be fixed by *modifying those licenses* - not by proliferating the license set that OSI recommends.

> It might be helpful for this discussion if there were some reference 
> to something (statute, case law) that obligates that a disclaimer in 
> Germany be styled in the particular way this license, since it 
> certainly impacts the enforcement of FOSS licenses in Germany (for 
> which there is quite a bit of precedent).

. which, again, if such evidence existed, it would mean we should redraft all FOSS licenses so they work better in Germany.  A special purpose license to address such an issue is pure license proliferation.

In addition to what McCoy asks for, I'd ask for a specific analysis of what harm can be caused to an individual user, consumer, or contributor if they can't disclaim a particular warranty in Germany under existing FOSS licenses, and specifically how this draft corrects that harm.

Relatedly, it seems to me that - even *if* in Germany there is a slight increase in the amount of warranties that for-profit operators in FOSS can't disclaim under existing FOSS licenses, then it's not much of a tragedy, as long as individual users, consumers and/or contributors are not impacted.

It's worth noting in this regard that the push toward maximal warranty disclaimer in copyleft licenses - historically speaking - had only two goals
(a) to make sure individual contributors didn't take on liability they couldn't handle, and (b) to encourage adoption by for-profit companies of projects that had such individual contributions.  We don't have any problem in FOSS with (b): companies continue to adopt FOSS in record numbers.

Thus, if the (a) can't be show to be a problem in Germany in some real, non-hypothetical terms, I think this proposal is a waste of time.  If (a) is shown to be a serious problem in Germany, we need to launch a wide-reaching redraft of all disclaimer clauses in all FOSS licenses - right away.

 *  * *

Side point: if this Germany warranty disclaimer thing is the primary impetus of this license, why is the name "Open Logistics License"?  Why not call it what it is intended to be: "Extra Warranty Disclaimer for Germany License"?
What part of the license has to do with opening the logistics of a project?
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsfconservancy.org%2Fsupporter%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7Cb8e0e607bc274cdb17ef08dadbb43ef1%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638063864442311903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2F54v6LGxsdbJAAYToetbbaEgnub6LzrSyGSWlfGgt2k%3D&reserved=0

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org
https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7Cb8e0e607bc274cdb17ef08dadbb43ef1%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638063864442311903%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Q1cZZUEc2Rs4LUFI0EKINV96zU7sVK1Wq4BvWQFMgA%3D&reserved=0