[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.3 (was v1.2)
Pamela Chestek
pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Wed Mar 22 00:04:44 UTC 2023
Thanks Andreas, it was a pleasure.
Pam
On 3/20/2023 3:58 AM, Andreas Nettsträter wrote:
>
> Dear Pam,
>
> Thank you for the good news.
>
> We are very grateful for the constructive discussion on the list and
> the resulting significant improvement of the license.
>
> Best regards
>
> Andreas
>
> *Von:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> *Im Auftrag von *Pamela Chestek
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 18. März 2023 15:04
> *An:* license-review at lists.opensource.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License
> v1.3 (was v1.2)
>
> The Board of the Open Source Initiative approved the Open Logistics
> License version 1.3 as an Open Source Initiative Certified license in
> the special purpose category of licenses at its March 19, 2023 meeting.
>
> The Board did so with the comment that it does not believe that choice
> of law provisions are necessary or advisable in open source licenses.
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> On 3/12/2023 8:31 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>
> Attached is the recommendation of the License Committee to the
> Board of Directors of the OSI recommending approval of the Open
> Logistics License version 1.3
>
> This is only a recommendation; the next step is that the Board
> will vote on whether or not the licensed will be approved.
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> 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%7C7415f4cc400e45ffed8108db27b9dc2f%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638147451442332935%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qfKBJlTgNjyOmTtFhelrtXHppNozjeAmLX5VixIXO94%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%7C7415f4cc400e45ffed8108db27b9dc2f%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638147451442332935%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hAUhkYrnIYcgoIWPR073lmDxWw3%2Faj4lD2u4nLCp9lE%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 <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%7C7415f4cc400e45ffed8108db27b9dc2f%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638147451442332935%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hAUhkYrnIYcgoIWPR073lmDxWw3%2Faj4lD2u4nLCp9lE%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 <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%7C7415f4cc400e45ffed8108db27b9dc2f%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C638147451442332935%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hAUhkYrnIYcgoIWPR073lmDxWw3%2Faj4lD2u4nLCp9lE%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/20230321/b24039a7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list