[License-review] Submission for review of Mulan Public License，Version 2

[McCoy Smith]

IMHO if you want to write a "perfect" license grant you'd include all 
the verbs in Berne, and USA (C) law, and perhaps the EU (C) directive, 
and you'd do the same for patent rights as well (USA, EU, and TRIPs, 
although USA and TRIPS are essentially coextensive).

I'm not sure there is any license that does that, although I haven't 
tried to examine them all in that regard (although I've a mind to do a 
project exactly on that point).

And no, I'm not going to write and submit the PPL (perfect public license)

On 1/22/2025 9:36 AM, Wayne Thornton wrote:
> This is an interesting point that McCoy makes. Although admittedly not a lawyer myself, how can any international open source license be required to enumerate strictly US rights for approval by OSI? If a license is international in origin and nature, it most definitely should conform with the Berne formulation of copyright rights. Holding international licenses to a US copyright formulation would appear to me to be short-sighted and potentially problematic in the future. Although OSI is US-based, open source is a truly international affair. Would it not be best practice for OSI to require international open source licenses to conform to the Berne formulation as opposed to imposing potentially problematic US copyright formulations for approval of a license by OSI?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 10:02 AM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission for review of Mulan Public License，Version 2
>
>
> On 1/22/2025 7:57 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>> If new licenses ought to include the full panoply of copyright rights,
>> and are to conform to international standards, shouldn't they instead
>> use the full Berne formulation of copyright rights rather than the US
>> formulation? In many cases they are articulated the same, or very
>> similarly, but in others there are distinct differences.
> I think there's a difference between what is the better practice and what would be acceptable to be approved as an open source license. There are many approved licenses that enumerate US rights only.
>
> Pam (in my personal capacity)
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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