[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8
Legal Desk
legal at muellners.org
Tue Aug 22 09:25:55 UTC 2023
Thanks for your feedback, and constructive critical view.
There are also numerous (i) callouts in the license. It is not clear
whether these are part of the license text, or are intended to be
explanatory.
*>>Callouts are Hint Texts which explain the Article but are not the legal
text. The PLAIN TEXT License Copy is available for ready reference here
<https://license.openconstitution.us/license-copy-eng>. *
''I'll note that overall, this license seems to have been created by
incrementally editing your prior terms of service, without a review to
ensure that the resulting document was internally consistent and clear.''
>>*Yes, **the License creation process is inspired by the visualisation of
the Open Constitution AI network (see a diagram here
<https://docs.muellners.info/oc-network/network-diagram>). This review
process is helping us further delink the License from the case study of the
Open Constitution network and make the license attributable to any digital
IP in AI systems.*
Based on your suggestions, we have set up a Live Editor copy to bring edits
to one place, during this review.
On this page, one can also leave a comment or a question directly next to
any Article, wherever any explanation is deemed required by the esteemed
members of the list.
https://license.openconstitution.us/public-review-copy
*The summary of edits is below;*
*A. *
''Article 1 section b is somewhat poorly drafted, but in any case requires
> that a 'derivative work' comply with a third party's "Acceptable Usage
> Conditions". This is clearly not compatible with OSD 5 and 6,
............................................. Article 5 is also
incompatible with OSD 5 and 6.
Licenses cannot include, by implication, external terms and
conditions. Such conditions must be part of the license, and they must
comply with the OSD.''
*>>EDITS: *
*Article 1: Remove dependence on external documents maintained elsewhere-
removing Acceptable Usage Conditions in 1b by rewriting Article 1.*
*Article 5: Rewritten to remove dependence on external doc Global Statutes:
Non-acceptable Usage or Exclusion Rights modelled on No harm, Security
measures & Data integrity.*
*B. *
*>>EDITS: *
*Article 2: Rewritten for clarity on ''rationale for the Source Object to
be publicly available''*
*C. *
''Article 3: Tokenization: this seems to say that licensees must have some
kind of specific electronic ID token to be licensees?
.................................... This seems to be
intended to be in support of Article 4, which would be related to the
open sourcing of AI data models, but the language is not at all clear.''
*>> EDITS: *
Article 3: Rewritten for clarity on ''what is authenticated and authorized
in the context of, any access to Source Object.''
*D.*
*>>EDITS*
Article 11 edits to make the jurisdiction independent for litigation due to
interpretation b/w other parties.
*E.*
*>>EDITS in* *Definitions:*
Removed definition of “Open Source” and added the write-up as a Help Text
for open sourcing an IP ... subjective nature of the term used in the
context of AI systems, added definitions to Tokenization, Network.
Please let us know if there are questions.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 2:00 PM <license-review-request at lists.opensource.org>
wrote:
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Request for Open Constitution License v1 for Approval
> (Kevin P. Fleming)
> 2. Re: Request for Legacy Approval for the ICU License (as used
> by ICU 1.8.1 to ICU 57.1) (Josh Berkus)
> 3. Re: Request for Open Constitution License v1 for Approval
> (Josh Berkus)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:38:34 -0400
> From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us>
> To: License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Open Constitution License v1
> for Approval
> Message-ID: <df3234f9-b157-4be3-950b-d0fa243f4bb6 at app.fastmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2023, at 17:00, Legal Desk via License-review wrote:
> > **Rationale f*or a new license*
> >
> > **
> >
> > The Open Constitution License (OCL) <
> https://license.openconstitution.us/open-constitution-license-v1> 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_
> >
>
> This license contains a definition of "Open Source" which is not based on
> the OSD. It seems highly unlikely that the OSI would approve a license
> containing a conflicting definition of this fundamental term.
>
> Article 1 section b is somewhat poorly drafted, but in any case requires
> that a 'derivative work' comply with a third party's "Acceptable Usage
> Conditions". This is clearly not compatible with OSD 5 and 6, which
> disallow discrimination against person(s) or group(s), and against fields
> of endeavor. Article 5 is also incompatible with OSD 5 and 6.
>
> Article 2.1 is not compatible with OSD 10; the license cannot dictate any
> specific technological mechanisms.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230817/25552683/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 17:45:29 -0700
> From: Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, Jeff Johnson <
> trnsz at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Legacy Approval for the ICU
> License (as used by ICU 1.8.1 to ICU 57.1)
> Message-ID: <6425fc40-fa75-408f-a073-2c89c8e567a1 at berkus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 8/16/23 01:25, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > I'm requesting that the ICU License be considered for Legacy approval as
> > an OSI-approved license.
>
> My vote, from a developer perspective:
>
> +1 to approve, with eventual tagging of "redundant with more popular
> licenses" or whatever our equivalent ends up being.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:04:39 -0700
> From: Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, "Kevin P. Fleming"
> <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Open Constitution License v1
> for Approval
> Message-ID: <522257a5-b18c-4e1c-94a7-09f233916f02 at berkus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Thanks for submitting this! We appreciate the effort to create a
> license specifically in the AI realm.
>
> I'll note that overall, this license seems to have been created by
> incrementally editing your prior terms of service, without a review to
> ensure that the resulting document was internally consistent and clear.
> The suggestions below are in pursuit of improving this license to the
> point where it can be acceptable.
>
> There are also numerous (i) callouts in the license. It is not clear
> whether these are part of the license text, or are intended to be
> explanitory. The text in many of these callouts directly contradicts
> text elsewhere.
>
> On 8/17/23 10:38, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> >
> > This license contains a definition of "Open Source" which is not based
> > on the OSD. It seems highly unlikely that the OSI would approve a
> > license containing a conflicting definition of this fundamental term.
> >
> > Article 1 section b is somewhat poorly drafted, but in any case requires
> > that a 'derivative work' comply with a third party's "Acceptable Usage
> > Conditions". This is clearly not compatible with OSD 5 and 6, which
> > disallow discrimination against person(s) or group(s), and against
> > fields of endeavor. Article 5 is also incompatible with OSD 5 and 6.
>
> Yes, this. Licenses cannot include, by implication, external terms and
> conditions. Such conditions must be part of the license, and they must
> comply with the OSD.
>
> >
> > Article 2.1 is not compatible with OSD 10; the license cannot dictate
> > any specific technological mechanisms.
>
> Also, 2.1 conflicts directly with the subsection "Open Constitution
> License Is technology-neutral." And with the very next paragraph under
> 2.1.
>
> Also, the whole business of machine vs. human-readable source objects
> very hard to understand, and I suspect the result of further edit
> conflicts.
>
> Article 3: Tokenization: this seems to say that licensees must have some
> kind of specific electronic ID token to be licensees? Is this an
> AI-specific thing? Because as a general software dev, it's completely
> unclear to me what this section is getting at. This seems to be
> intended to be in support of Article 4, which would be related to the
> open sourcing of AI data models, but the language is not at all clear.
>
> Article 5: This makes it clear that the idea is for Acceptable Usage
> Conditions to be something that any licensor can do for their individual
> source object. This isn't going to work, not if you want this to be
> open source. It's also unenforceable and impossible to comply with.
>
> It also adds a dependancy on yet another external document, the Global
> Statutes of the Open Constitution Network, which isn't going to work for
> the reasons explained above.
>
> So, interesting first draft, hopefully we can edit this into a place
> where it's actually open source.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8
> **********************************************
>
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230822/7a5e29a4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list