[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)
Pamela Chestek
pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Sun Jan 22 04:59:03 UTC 2023
Hi Andreas,
We will consider version 1.2 withdrawn and this a resubmission. The
Decision Date for it will be 30 days after submission, that is, 30 days
after January 17, 2023.[^1]
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
[^1]: "'Decision Date' for a license normally means (a) 60 days after a
license is initially submitted to the license-review list for review,
and (b) 30 days after submission of a revised version of a license that
was previously submitted for review." https://opensource.org/approval
On 1/17/2023 8:41 AM, Andreas Nettsträter wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> attached you’ll find the updated version of our license.
>
> 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>
> *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%7C557638f3b6bb4821200b08daf56a2618%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638092133503191856%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Hnjr4Yeng9ad2B0bSZicC2uUbgrgRvn%2FWps0AKkwlIQ%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%7C557638f3b6bb4821200b08daf56a2618%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638092133503191856%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xmRhW1gmPiEuIxaUtxMI0LS4THxYNTkwoiQuscRu%2FUY%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
> 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/20230121/3b389eb4/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list