[License-review] Request for a new license review

Tue Dec 17 16:54:51 UTC 2024

Hello everyone,

I saw that Pam asked for more information, so I guess this means the OSI 
is willing to accept non-English licenses (wasn't so sure).

I'm both curious and think I can make some useful comments. As to my 
curiosity, we can of course take it elsewhere.

Most importantly, I don't think a certified translation in itself will 
work. I'm doubtful a translator can bridge two legal systems by themselves.

If anything Mr Langenheim or we need to provide an English language text 
to them to get signed off on.

> more favourable liability and warranty rights apply, it has not yet 
> been confirmed by the courts. This results in the risk that courts may 
> adopt a different legal interpretation in the event of a dispute, with 
> the result that the statutory liability limitations of donation law no 
> longer apply. However, it is particularly important for public law 
> projects of cities, municipalities, etc. to agree a legally secure 
> limitation of liability that guarantees a limitation of liability 
> regardless of the legal classification.
>

Why are cities particularly susceptible to the risk, and not just anyone 
(who might be a juicy target)?

> Jedem, der eine Kopie dieser Software und der zugehörigen 
> Dokumentationsdateien (die „Software“) erhält, wird hiermit kostenlos 
> die Erlaubnis erteilt, ohne Einschränkung mit der Software zu handeln, 
> einschließlich und ohne Einschränkung der Rechte zur Nutzung, zum 
> Kopieren, Ändern, Zusammenführen, Veröffentlichen, Verteilen, 
> Unterlizenzieren und/oder Verkaufen von Kopien der Software, und 
> Personen, denen die Software zur Verfügung gestellt wird, dies unter 
> den folgenden Bedingungen zu gestatten:
>

I would welcome gender neutral language (jedem -> jeder Person e.g.)

I wonder about "handeln" (to deal in). I don't think the English 
language meaning here is narrowly "to trade in" but rather broadly what 
would be "umgehen" in German. I can see that the German Wikipedia uses 
"handeln" but that is also just a person hiding behind a computer screen ;-)

> Der obige Urheberrechtshinweis und dieser Genehmigungshinweis müssen 
> in allen Kopien oder wesentlichen Teilen der Software enthalten sein.
>

Here starts the problem, at least for me, and I don't think a certified 
translation can fix this.

After years and years of listening to my own lawyers / Justitiar now I 
still don't fully understand the distinction between Urheber und 
Rechtehalter.

The MIT license uses copyright, the notice is about the party who holds 
the exploitation rights / title and provides the rights grant.

There is no separate naming of author, which I think would be closer to 
Urheber?

This distinction of copyright holder and author is not uncommon e.g. you 
can find

Copyright (c) 2024 Google Inc, authored by random at google.com

quite often. I suspect this is the crux of the issue but I still don't 
understand why you have to emphasize the original author and not the 
rights owner.

> DIE AUTOREN ODER URHEBERRECHTSINHABER HAFTEN UNBESCHRÄNKT BEI VORSATZ, 
> ARGLISTIGER TÄUSCHUNG, GROBER FAHRLÄSSIGKEIT, DER VERLETZUNG VON LEIB, 
> LEBEN ODER GESUNDHEIT UND SOWEIT DIE HAFTUNG GESETZLICH NICHT 
> BESCHRÄNKT ODER AUSGESCHLOSSEN WERDEN KANN. BEI FAHRLÄSSIGER 
> VERLETZUNG EINER PFLICHT, DEREN ERFÜLLUNG WESENTLICH FÜR DIE 
> DURCHFÜHRUNG DES VERTRAGS IST (KARDINALPFLICHT), HAFTEN DIE AUTOREN 
> ODER URHEBERRECHTSINHABER DER HÖHE NACH BEGRENZT AUF DEN SCHADEN, DER 
> BEI VERTRAGSSCHLUSS VORHERSEHBAR UND TYPISCH IST.
>

Since in the disclaimer you now separate author and rights holder, but 
tie the later to Urheberrecht, I'm confused some more. You may have to 
explain this distinction to us.

But just to make sure that I understand the intent of the license more 
specifically: By singling out the one case where U.S. law might go wrong 
when applied in Germany (e.g. disclaiming gross negligence) you address 
the problem case explicitly. The rest is intended to remain as in the 
original license?

> DIE VORSTEHENDE HAFTUNGSBESCHRÄNKUNG GILT AUCH FÜR DIE HAFTUNG DER 
> MITARBEITER, VERTRETER UND ORGANE DER AUTOREN ODER URHEBERRECHTSINHABER.
>

Interesting. So employees or agents of a company that open sources 
something may be held liable for anything their employer did? Even if 
the problematic code was authored by a wholly different employee? 
(Sounds insane to me.)

Cheers, Dirk

> I will be happy to answer any further questions.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> NiccoloLangenheim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Niccolo****Langenheim*
>
>
> *Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH*
>
> Anna-Schneider-Steig 22 (Rheinauhafen), 50678 Köln, Germany
>
> Phone: +49 221 9937 21105
>
> Fax: +49 221 9937 110
>
> Mobile: +49 152 016 21105
>
> niccolo.langenheim at luther-lawfirm.com 
> <mailto:niccolo.langenheim at luther-lawfirm.com>
>
> www.luther-lawfirm.com <http://www.luther-lawfirm.com/>
>
>
> Luther Lawfirm - Juve 2024 <http://www.luther-lawfirm.com/>
>
> Einen Überblick über unsere aktuellen Veranstaltungen finden Sie im 
> _Luther-Terminkalender 
> <https://www.luther-lawfirm.com/newsroom/veranstaltungen>_
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.luther-lawfirm.com/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Geschäftsführer: Elisabeth Lepique, Dr. Markus Sengpiel
> Die Gesellschaft ist eingetragen beim Registergericht Köln
> (Sitz der Gesellschaft) Nr. HRB 39853
>
> Information on how Luther handles your personal data can be found here 
> <https://www.luther-lawfirm.com/datenschutzinformation-mandanten>.
> This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) is confidential and 
> intended only for the individual(s) or entity named above and others 
> who have been specifically authorised to receive it. If you are not 
> the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose the 
> contents of this communication to others. Please notify the sender 
> that you have received this e-mail in error, by calling the phone 
> number indicated or by e-mail, and delete the e-mail (including any 
> attachment/s) subsequently. This information may be subject to 
> professional secrecy (e. g. of auditor, tax or legal advisor), other 
> privilege or otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other 
> legal rules. Thank you.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Confused about open source?
Get clarity throughhttps://bayave.com/training
https://dirkriehle.com, about everywhere @dirkriehle
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241217/cfb51a26/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241217/cfb51a26/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8482 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241217/cfb51a26/attachment-0003.png>