[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)

Wed Jan 18 10:31:52 UTC 2023

Dear McCoy,

following Apache and the EVB-IT*, we have chosen a catch all rule to cover as many cases as possible. This formulation is completely compatible with German law.

*EVB-IT = Ergänzende Vertragsbedingungen für die Beschaffung von IT-Leistungen / Supplementary Terms of Contract for the Procurement of IT Services)

Regards

Andreas

Von: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> Im Auftrag von McCoy Smith
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2023 23:49
An: 'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)

One thing I find curious about this license:
It is designed to be interpreted under German law, but at least in its intellectual property grants, it is written as if it were to be interpreted under USA law.
So the copyright grants are the following:
reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute.
Those are the rights granted under US law, 17 USC 106. The German Copyright Act Sec. 15 et seq. expresses the rights differently.
The patent grants are the following:
produce, have produced, use, offer for sale, sell, import and otherwise transfer.
This looks more like the grants in German Patent Act Sec. 9, although it's more a hybrid of 35 US 271(a) & German Patent Act Sec 9.
Shouldn't you be using the rights granted under the German Copyright and Patent Acts instead if you want this to be a Germany specific license?

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>> On Behalf Of Andreas Nettsträter
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:42 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)

Dear all,

attached you'll find the updated version of our license.
106
As discussed earlier, we've adapted the license name; we have corrected the parentheses in the first sentence of article 4 and we've deleted a paragraph from article 4. In our view, paragraph 1 of article 4 already ensures the flow down of the licence and conditions, so that 4.4 is not necessarily needed. Therefore, we dropped it completely.

Regards
Andreas

Von: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>> Im Auftrag von Andreas Nettsträter
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2023 14:28
An: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

Dear Carlo, all,

thanks for the advice. We already have some ideas to make it more understandable.

I'll share an updated version (including some other discussed topics) of the license within the next days.

Regards
Andreas

Von: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>> Im Auftrag von Carlo Piana
Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Dezember 2022 11:27
An: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

Andreas,

definitely not authoritative, but since I am the one who raised the subject, I feel an obligation to provide a potential solution.

I would not depart from the common practice of requesting that the recipients of distributed software be notified of the legal language in some form, by including the whole text of the license along the distribution, or by making reference to a canonical online resource, and by requesting an appropriate legal notice. There are plenty of examples out there, all remixing the same concepts and language. See e.g. the GNU *GPLv3.

All the best,

Carlo

________________________________
Da: "Andreas Nettsträter" <andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org<mailto:andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org>>
A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
Inviato: Venerdì, 23 dicembre 2022 15:01:24
Oggetto: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2
Dear Pam, dear Carlo,

the last bulletpoint of Article 4 was meant to implement an obligation to flow down the obligations of the other bulletpoints of Article 4; if the provision requires modification to make this clear, we can make the respective amendments.

How could we formulate it in a better way?

Regards
Andreas

Von: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>> Im Auftrag von Pamela Chestek
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2022 18:05
An: license-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

On 12/14/2022 4:24 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
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.

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com<mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
(919) 800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com<https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chesteklegal.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7C22360583a29f4dce00f108daf8dd3600%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638095926230489819%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ijy2VcSeBsZH5wYXZ%2BH5in8wiYHusaV9raCAbLVS6Bw%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________
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<mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7C22360583a29f4dce00f108daf8dd3600%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638095926230489819%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rOkrAmy7KQZKLilt0Phz9G%2BgEoY0kFo42vAs86pb9WU%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230118/a6f7eccb/attachment-0001.html>