<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Richard Fontana wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I don't think those are exclusively or particularly lawyer questions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> These are a combination of policy issues and textual interpretation<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> (where the main relevant texts are this license and the OSD).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Lawyers may be able to provide some insight, especially regarding<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> how the license itself is likely to be interpreted in practice. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Not sure how much more useful lawyers qua lawyers are, in<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> general, for things like this.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>+1. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>This license should also be discussed on lists at <a href="http://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a> or at the <a href="https://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>. They are the experts on privacy of electronic information and the licensing of non-software. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Most of us are not also on those lists so please let us know if they recommend your license.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Richard Fontana [mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org] <br>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 7:06 AM<br>To: License submissions for OSI review<br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for approval by license steward: Tidepool Open Access to Health Data Software License</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:32:16 -0700<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Josh Berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>josh@postgresql.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> So, I think there's a couple of questions to resolve regarding this <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> license which are orthagonal discussions:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> 1) is it open source and original or not? That's a lawyer question, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> really; the license certainly looks open source from a developer <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> perspective.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I don't think those are exclusively or particularly lawyer questions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>These are a combination of policy issues and textual interpretation (where the main relevant texts are this license and the OSD). Lawyers may be able to provide some insight, especially regarding how the license itself is likely to be interpreted in practice. Not sure how much more useful lawyers qua lawyers are, in general, for things like this. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> 2) does it do what the Tidepool foundation actually wants? That's a <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> much more complicated question, needing both developer and lawyer <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> input.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I think question (2) kind of goes beyond what license-review as a list <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> does, alathough I'm personally quite interested in it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I agree with that. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>- RF<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>License-review@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>