[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License

Andreas Nettsträter andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org
Mon May 16 16:36:26 UTC 2022

Dear all,

I'm still waiting for the final input from all partners. Corona/Covid are still causing longer delays here.

Sorry for that. I hope that I can provide feedback until next week the latest.

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of Andreas Nettsträter <andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:15:36 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License

Dear all,

Thanks for the useful feedback.

I'll talk to the lawyers and give you more information on the decisions and reasons for the changes. Also regarding the connection between German and European law.

Because of Easter holidays this could take some days.

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:12:50 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License


Thanks for submitting this!

I'm no lawyer but I'm a little uncomfortable with the wording for the disclaimer of liability around which words the "and" and "or" apply to.

For example does it mean:

1. (intent and gross negligence) OR (causing personal injury), or
2. (intent) and (gross negligence or causing personal injury)

While we should definitely avoid any harm to our users, 1 seems like it's creating a pretty high risk to developers. After all, in some cases it's nearly impossible to avoid all possible injuries to all persons everywhere. Depending on the design of the software, it may be dangerous to some subset of users while perfectly safe to other users.

One thought I have is that, in cases of potential liability, I am under the impression that certain punishments apply if someone intends to cause the injury or exhibited gross negligence. So does it make sense to have an "and" there?

My thinking is it would make more sense to rewrite the clause to mean:  (intent OR gross negligence) AND (causing personal injury). After all, if you exhibit intent and gross negligence but don't cause any injury, as I understand it, there would be no civil liability because there would be no injured party. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm based in the US so I'm applying my very limited knowledge to that.


On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:37 AM Andreas Nettsträter <andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org<mailto:andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org>> wrote:
Dear License Review Team,

I would like to propose the Open Logistics License for an approval.

You can find the plain text copy of the license in the attachment and the requested additional information in the following.

This new license is intended to represent the rights and obligations of an established license, such as Apache v2, while respecting the differences between US and European law. The changes were mainly done in the paragraphs regarding warranty and liability.

The Open Logistics License is based on Apache v2, but has been modified to comply more with European law.

Legal review:
The entire process of discussing and drafting the license was accompanied by BHO Legal, a German law firm specialized in IT law. Adjustments were made to specifically adapt the rules on the patent license, warranty, and liability to European law. The adjustments are intended to strengthen the acceptance of the license by European companies and minimize (perhaps only perceived) risks. The license was subsequently reviewed and approved by several in-house lawyers of larger European companies. Further details and justifications for the individual changes can be provided on request.

Proliferation category:
The decision on one specific category is quite hard. The license is compatible with Apache2, but was adapted to some specific European rules. The license will be used by a larger group of companies in the frame of open source development for logistics and supply chain management, but is, of course, not limited to this purpose. Therefore, the license can be seen as a special purpose license.

I'm happy to deliver more information, if needed.

Regards from Germany

Andreas Nettsträter
Open Logistics Foundation

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<https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fopensource.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7Ced7913a3d2294062d11008da20854ee8%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637858054176946830%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0DGbAtPF%2FBvKfuFeMgfaPCNzXrjAd0n%2F4%2BgdTNMRvpc%3D&reserved=0> email address.

License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>

Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate
eric at wwahammy.com<mailto:eric at wwahammy.com>
Pronouns: He/his/him
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20220516/792c1575/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list