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

[Carlo Piana]

> Da: "Pamela Chestek" <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Domenica, 11 dicembre 2022 17:42:20
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

> On 12/5/2022 2:45 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:

>>> You must ensure that the recipients of the Subject Matter of the License or
>>> Derivative Works are obligated to incorporate the provisions of this Section 4
>>> into any license under which they distribute the Subject Matter of the License
>>> or Derivative Works to any other recipients.

>> This provision requires the "You" to a legal effect. As a general remark, this
>> is an open ended obligation and IMVHO a bad design decision, since the legal
>> effect depends on many different circumstances outside the control of the
>> "You", including intent, capacity, errors, lack of proper form etc. You can
>> surely include perform an obligation as a condition of the grant, but including
>> a legal effect is to me really really seeking for trouble.

> Carlo, I'm not following what you're saying. Are you saying that the Licensor
> has some liability if the user doesn't actually incorporate the provisions of
> Section 4 into their downstream license?

Sorry Pam, I have written poorly 

I meant "This provision requires the "You" to **achieve** a legal effect." The obligation requires that *the recipients** be "obligated". Here it is more of a guarantee, something that you are liable for and not necessarily control, so the risk is on you whatever it happens. 

> I am puzzled by how this is implemented, though. Does it mean that the
> distributor has to have a separate statement somewhere saying "you are
> obligated to follow Section 4 on your further distribution"? Wouldn't providing
> a copy of the license sufficient? And since the distributing party is obliged
> to provide a copy of the license, isn't this requirement self-fulfilling? I
> don't understand what problem there is that this section was meant to solve.

Yes, this is a sub-issue and I share it too. 

The main issue for me is that there is no way to tell what is sufficient to meet the obligation, since you guarantee a result in the legal domain. I hope is clearer now. 

Thanks and sorry for this 

Carl 

> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> [ mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com | pamela at chesteklegal.com ]
> +1 919-800-8033

> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20221214/bda7f1fd/attachment.html>