[License-review] Request for Open Constitution License v1 for Approval

[Carlo Piana]

Dear sirs, 

I am writing in my personal capacity. Very quickly, sorry for terseness. 

An interesting concept. However, I am not sure what is the role of the " Acceptable Usage Conditions " to which a redistribution of the Work must adhere, to begin with. You mean that there are other, unlisted conditions, that must be accepted? In which way? Expressly? 

I am confused also by the concept of Licensor/Licensee. In an Open Source licensing, all licensees are also potential licensors of a derivative. At a cursory reading, it is not clear if the Licensor of the Work (which includes derivative Works) can be the Licensor of a Derivative Work. In which case, I have trouble identifying the Licensor in case of litigation under Art. 10, if the matter involves the Derivative Work and it is between two copyright holders. 

I have also stated previously my perplexity towards using a particular jurisdiction as a venue for litigation, which seems to discriminate in the ease of access to justice. Long discussion, don't want to start it over again here. 

Maybe most importantly, the grant of license provides that: 

> Article 1: Grant of Redistribution [
> https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1#article-1-grant-of-redistribution
> ]
> The Licensor permits the Licensee to redistribute Work, as long as
> a. an authenticated authorization to the Source Object is provided to any
> beneficiary and
> b. That any derivative work complies with the I.P. Estate's Acceptable Usage
> Conditions and
> c. That any derivative work is attributed with this license.
> For the scope of this Article 1, the Licensor grants to the Licensee
> non-exclusive, royalty-free, usage rights to any patents held by the Licensor,
> to the extent necessary to make use of the rights granted on the Work under
> this License.

So here, at face value, this license only grants distribution rights, whereas the right to use and modify are not expressly granted. However, there is another grant just above: 

> Licensor hereby gives the Licensee NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS to the Work to use,
> modify, and redistribute the Work,
> subject to the terms and conditions and covenants set forth below

Isn't a bit odd that the grant is given subject to another grant? 

What is the role of " authenticated authorization ", since it is not a defined term? Does it amount to? 

Also, 2.1 seems to indicate that the only acceptable distribution of the machine-readable copy of the Source Object, must be through a public repository on the Open Constitution network. That seems to limit the field of endeavor and to dictate a particular resource (which may or may not exist in the future) for exercising the rights. 

Reading it in connection with: 

> Article 6: Electronic License [
> https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1#article-6-electronic-license
> ]
> The provisions of this License can be accepted by the Licensee, or by any
> beneficiary of the Work, by providing informed consent in electronic mode, on
> the publicly available ledger, on the Open Constitution Network, in accordance
> with the rules of applicable law. (as further defined in Articles 10 and 11)

The use of "can" seems ambiguous. Is it just an option or is it the way by which a mandatory acceptance should occur? How that matches #7? #10? 

As a general comment, this license does not appear to have been drafted with the help of an Open Source licensing expert, sorry, and seems to have many gaps and provisions that are at odds with the OSD, each of which alone are grounds for rejection, IMHO. 

Could you please explain? 

All the best, 

Carlo 

> Da: "Legal Desk via License-review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Cc: "Legal Desk" <legal at muellners.org>
> Inviato: Mercoledì, 16 agosto 2023 23:00:06
> Oggetto: [License-review] Request for Open Constitution License v1 for Approval

> Rationale f or a new license

> The [ https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1 | Open
> Constitution License (OCL) ] is a novel open-source license that grants
> intellectual property rights to source code hosted on an Artificial
> Intelligence network. It sets rules for data integrity, authorization, and
> redistribution of IP through a publicly accessible network. The license
> considers factors such as open data principles, copyrightability of AI/ML
> systems, data privacy, fair competition, and responsibility in AI/ML-driven
> decisions.

> OCL differs from other open-source licenses in its focus on AI and its specific
> provisions for data protection, international law, and the role of the public
> network.

> It introduces General Public Tokenization, and electronic persons in the context
> of open source IPR.

> OCL establishes a chain of authorship similar to EUPL-1.2 or a restriction on
> the Licensee for data integrity performance when redistributing to a
> beneficiary, s imilar to CAL1.0,

> PLAIN TEXT COPY OF THE LICENSE

> [ https://license.openconstitution.us/license-copy-eng |
> https://license.openconstitution.us/license-copy-eng ]

> LICENSE COPY WITH EXPLAINER/HELP TEXT/HINTS

> [ https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1 |
> https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1 ]

> Supporting Information:

>    1. Home Page of License Site: [ https://license.openconstitution.us/ |
>     https://license.openconstitution.us/ ]
>    2. Open Research Resources: [
>    https://license.openconstitution.us/research-resources |
>     https://license.openconstitution.us/research-resources ]
>    3. Relevant FAQs [ https://license.openconstitution.us/faqs |
>     https://license.openconstitution.us/faqs ]
>     4. Proliferation category: Miscellaneous/others or Special Purpose(NOT SURE)
>    5. Legal review: License Steward appointed [
>    https://docs.muellners.info/foundation/legal-council | Legal C.W.C review ] .
>    Subject Matter Experts from Open Council have contributed to the License draft,
>     based on their experience in the open-source industry.
>    6. OCL is in use as described here; [
>    https://docs.muellners.info/open-source-policies/open-source-usage-and-delivery-policies
>    |
>    https://docs.muellners.info/open-source-policies/open-source-usage-and-delivery-policies
>     ]
>     7. License Steward: Muellners Foundation

> You can also ask relevant questions on the License using an AI tool,

> [ https://license.openconstitution.us/?q= |
> https://license.openconstitution.us/?q= ]

> Link to License General Public Review:

> [ https://muellners.discourse.group/t/open-constitution-license/16 |
> https://muellners.discourse.group/t/open-constitution-license/16 ]

> It is our humble request that you review the Open Constitution License v1 and
> provide feedback, legal editorial review and if possible approve the OCL v1 for
> admission to the OSI License Directory.

> Thanks very much

> --
> Legal Desk
> Muellners Foundation

> Impressum- Muellners® "frivillig forening"; Voluntary Association, Copenhagen,
> Denmark CVR: 41008407

> This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
> contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this
> message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender
> by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any
> dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by
> anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages
> sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by
> applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies
> and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to
> be error-free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or
> contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate
> with us by e-mail.

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230817/293f8f05/attachment-0001.html>