[License-review] Adapting the license-review process to AI

[Shuji Sado]

Pamela-san,

In Japan, please consider that copyright and moral rights are separate
rights.

For example, in GPLv3, the term "copyright-like" is used in the clause
defining "Copyright," and this is interpreted to include moral rights.
Similarly, in the MIT License and other licenses, there is no language that
limits the scope to copyright alone, so it is interpreted to include moral
rights as well.
In the case of the Apache 2.0 License, it explicitly states "copyright
license," but it also grants irrevocable permission for acts such as
reproduction, distribution, and modification.
This is interpreted as a declaration that moral rights will not be
exercised.
Compared to these existing licenses, the expression "infringe that
contributor's copyright" in the Blue Oak License is limited to copyright
and may not include moral rights.

I recently learned that Japan applies moral rights most strictly among
countries, so these may be specific issues unique to Japan.
However, since it is an issue that can be avoided with minor adjustments,
as seen in the GPL, I would like to utilize a formal license re-review
process if it exists.

Regarding OSAID, which is the main topic of this thread, as I mentioned in
yesterday's email, some training data might include publicity rights or
other such rights.
If these rights are not addressed in the license, it will be challenging to
ensure free use.


2024/09/09 7:00 Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>:

>
> On 9/8/2024 9:56 AM, Shuji Sado wrote:
> > In March, I pointed out that the Blue Oak Model License does not
> > consider moral rights.
> > The consensus in this thread was that, for software programs, not
> > considering moral rights is not an issue in most jurisdictions
> > worldwide, but it can be a problem in East Asian countries,
> > particularly in Japan.
> > At the time, I did not take significant action because it seemed to be
> > an issue limited to a few countries, and there were not many projects
> > adopting this license.
> >
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2024-March/thread.html#22222
> >
> > However, recently, there was a request within my organization to apply
> > this license, and after discussions with multiple legal department
> > members who hold law degrees,
> > it was determined that in Japan, the Blue Oak License retains moral
> > rights with the authors, posing a risk that usage could be stopped at
> > any time.
> > This cannot be considered an Open Source Data license. Also, regarding
> > data, there are likely many jurisdictions where moral rights are not
> > as restricted as they are for software.
>
> Isn't this true of all open source licenses?
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 300 Fayetteville St.
> Unit 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240909/cefb27e4/attachment.htm>