[License-review] License review

Sat May 25 06:38:48 UTC 2024

Pam, 

I agree. I tried to be as favorable as possible by interpreting the very vague clause as in "all derivatives must not be proprietary, but under some non-proprietary license," which is but one of the possible interpretations. However, as I have anticipated, the ambiguity thereby created can very well land in #6 territory, and I agree it takes a lot of effort to restrict the clause to the above interpretation. 

All the best. 

Carlo 

> Da: "Pamela Chestek" <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Venerdì, 24 maggio 2024 20:22:59
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] License review

> The license says "You are not allowed to make a proprietary application from the
> source code of this program." I think you are charitable in characterizing it
> as a "copyleft" condition, I don't see it that way. A copyleft clause dictates
> that a derivative work (or portion of it) must be under the same license. This
> license does not say anything closes to that. I see it as a clear and obvious
> violation of OSD 6.

> Pamela S. Chestek, in my personal capacity
> Chestek Legal
> 300 Fayetteville Street
> Unit 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> [ mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com | pamela at chesteklegal.com ]
> (919) 800-8033
> [ http://www.chesteklegal.com/ | www.chesteklegal.com ]

> Pam

> On 5/23/2024 12:02 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:

>> Hi,

>> speaking in my personal capacity here.

>> The license is indeed poorly drafted, I am afraid. Not that MIT is itself a
>> masterpiece of legal language, but at least it's a popular license.

>> EG, it is not clear if the list of conditions stops at the inclusion of
>> copyright notice etc. Already in MIT this is not very clear, since the
>> liability disclaimer is not written as a condition, but at least one can
>> arguably construe it as such.

>> But you have added an extra paragraph that seems to remove any doubts. So, in
>> case the liability limitation is not valid (for instance, it would not be valid
>> under Italian law) it does not even work as a condition (the copyright title is
>> revoked since you violated the condition by claiming that the author be liable,
>> therefore you are not coming with clean hands since you violated the author's
>> copyright in the first place and therefore even damages are subject to a higher
>> bar) .

>> I am not even sure that paragraph on "for any complaints" belongs in license
>> conditions.

>> The most notable addition to MIT is a very simple copyleft condition, which
>> risks to be quite overarching and troublesome, since there is no indication
>> that its copyleft extends only to anything that it is derivative under
>> copyright title. It is my understanding that copyleft that goes beyond
>> copyright and establishes overreaching conditions on non-derivative be contrary
>> to #9 of OSD. You should at least clarify this, IMHO.

>> Depending on the meaning of the copyleft condition and technical consideration,
>> also, it might or might not be against #6.

>> My tentative opinion is that this license should be rejected on the above
>> grounds.

>> All the best

>> Carlo

>>> Da: "Setup Tooling Legal Team" [ mailto:legal at burningpho3nix.xyz |
>>> <legal at burningpho3nix.xyz> ]
>>> A: [ mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org |
>>> "license-review at lists.opensource.org" ] [
>>> mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org |
>>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> ]
>>> Inviato: Mercoledì, 15 maggio 2024 14:39:52
>>> Oggetto: [License-review] License review

>>> Greetings everyone,

>>> I'd like to get a new license approve,
>>> this license is complying with the OSD.
>>> The project [ https://gitlab.com/setup-tooling-project/setup-tool | Setup Tool ]
>>> is planning to adopt this license as soon as it's approved.
>>> The person maintaining this license is myself.
>>> I have not send it to review by the FSF or such yet.
>>> The license attached is called "Setup Tooling License 1.3".
>>> This license is not exactly filling a big gap, it is more about matching it to
>>> the projects needs.
>>> As it is derived from the MIT license it is very similar to that,
>>> the difference made is a restriction to use or better said no use in
>>> closed-source software.
>>> The license was not drafted by a lawyer.

>>> Best regards,
>>> Eddi-Jay Ohlms
>>> BurningPho3nix, Maintainer and Project Lead Setup Tooling Project
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> [ mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org |
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org ]
>>> [
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>> |
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>> ]

>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 [ mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org |
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org ] [
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> |
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> ]

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240525/fcbd60e4/attachment-0001.html>