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

[Andreas Nettsträter]

We kindly disagree here. As stated before, from our perspective these are two different questions to answer (1. Does the license meet the open source definition; 2. For whom is the license relevant and who should use it).

 Therefore, we don't see the necessity to provide a FAQ (which is a living document and therefore cannot be approved) in order to answer the question if the license meets the open source definition, even if this results in a "no" vote.

Regards
Andreas


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> 
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Januar 2023 02:11
An: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>; Andreas Nettsträter <andreas.nettstraeter at openlogisticsfoundation.org>
Betreff: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)

On 1/19/23 03:04, Andreas Nettsträter wrote:
> The main difference to APL2 (and also our motivation) is, to have a license using formulations as unambiguous and explicit as possible with regards to German law.

Sure.  But why would anyone care?  That's what I'm getting at.  What difference does it make if the license works with German law, or not? 
German developers have been writing and publishing code for decades without this license; why do they need it now?

So I'm not asking for a FAQ later.  I'm asking for a FAQ before we vote on the license.  Or my vote is going to be "no".

--
Josh Berkus