[License-review] Final comment on Open Logistics License (was Re: For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

My final comments that are on-topic for license-review regarding the “Open
Logistics License”.

I ask OSI's Board to REJECT acceptance of “Open Logistics License” as an
OSI-approved Open Source License for the following two reasons:

 * It has a “choice of law” clause for Germany.  This is unprecedented
   because — after changes in recent years to in EPL and MPL — no other
   licenses on OSI-approved list have a “choice of law” of Germany
   specifically, and it seems the only active precedents for a “choice of
   law” clause permanently nailed to a single jurisdiction (rather than
   “jurisdiction of the Licensor”-style “choice of law”) is the Qt License,
   which is a deprecated vanity license.

 * The name “Open Logistics License” is confusing, and may lead OSI's
   license users to believe this is a recommended license for all activity
   in the “open logistics” field of endeavor.

   “Open logistics” is a generic term that seems to have something to do
   with “open source”.  Specifically, I am concerned that it might confuse
   the community that if you are doing “open logistics” of any kind, that,
   if approved, users of the license list will assume that the “Open
   Logistics License” is considered by OSI as the preferred license for that
   activity.  (By contrast, no one is confused to think that if you're
   writing software to study eclipses that OSI prefers the EPL.)

As a separate matter, I ask OSI's Board at their next meeting under
<https://opensource.org/approval> to (re)consider various proposals that
were reiterated in this discussion (a) a license approval appeals court
system, and (b) a process for delisting that can be initiated by an entity
or individual other than the license steward.  See:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2022-December/022041.html
   

[ Fontana and I have moved further replies on Eric Schultz's sub-thread to
  license-discuss per Pam's request.  Note that Pam had a address typo in
  her reply so, her email didn't show up on license-discuss. ]

 -- bkuhn