<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi,<br />you could have mistaken me for some other petitioner.<br />I have submitted a license for your approval, in the name of "Open Creation License".<br /><br />I am willing to submit once again, if my submission is an error.<br /><br />With regards,<br />Libre Artist.<br /><br /><br />6. May 2018 09:45 by <a href="mailto:cgerlach@tcilaw.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cgerlach@tcilaw.de</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">Bruce,<br /><br />please excuse the delayed response. I'm answering to your comments in<br />separate e-mails.<br /><blockquote>*ESA Permissive PL 2.3*<br />3.1 _No Copyleft._<br />You may Distribute the Software and/or Modifications, as Source Code or<br />Object Code, under any<br />license terms, provided that<br />(a) notice is given of the use of the Software and the applicability of<br />this License to the<br />Software; and<br />(b) You make best efforts to ensure that further Distribution of the<br />Software and/or<br />Modifications (including further Modifications) is subject to the<br />obligations set forth in<br />this Sec. 3.1 (a) and (b).<br /><br />The title "No Copyleft" is confusing and incorrect, since the terms of<br />that section actually /do /permit distribution under a copyleft license,<br />and they still apply even if the downstream licensor uses a non-copyleft<br />license. </blockquote><br />The intention is to clarify that the license itself does not include a<br />copyleft clause (as "no copyleft" is generally understood).<br />Redistribution under a copyleft license is feasible, as the software can<br />be redistributed "under any license terms". I would not have thought of<br />the title as confusing in that regard.<br /><blockquote>The actual effect of the terms is to guarantee that whatever<br />license is used, the ESA Permissive PL 2.3 license is still available as<br />an /alternative license/, and the downstream licensor has to make a<br />notice to that effect.<br /><br />And thus, I'd suggest that you state the actual text of the notice the<br />poor un-counseled Open Source developer has to make in that case. Here's<br />my suggested rewrite:</blockquote><br />This would indeed be helpful, but to achieve this, we would prefer to<br />suggest a notice text in the license FAQ.<br /><blockquote>3.1 _Continued Availability of This License._<br />You may Distribute the Software and/or Modifications, as Source Code or<br />Object Code, under any<br />license terms, provided that<br />(a) you convey this notice with the software:<br />/This software contains a portion licensed under the ESA Permissive PL<br />2.3. For that portion, the ESA Permissive PL 2.3 terms are available as<br />an alternative to any other license applied to this software. The<br />portion was downloaded from, or is available at:<br />___________________________________________</blockquote><br /><br />"Contains a portion licensed under the ESA Permissive PL" might suggests<br />that two licenses apply simultaneously to the software. That could<br />prohibit a combination of ESA-PL Permissive licensed code with e.g. GPL<br />licensed code. I would therefore suggest the notice:<br />"This software contains a portion of XXX, Copyright © 2018 YYY. XXX is<br />originally licensed under the ESA-PL Permissive license."<br /><blockquote>(b) you add to the notice the online location where you downloaded the<br />Software, or the location where it is currently available in Source Code<br />form as separate software entirely under this license. This may be an<br />online location or a subdirectory within your own software distribution.</blockquote><br />We will suggest in the FAQ to add a pointer to the online location in<br />the notice as a matter of best practice, but would rather avoid such an<br />additional obligation in the license. Compliance with the license terms<br />should be as simple as possible. In most cases, the copyright notice<br />along with the name of the original component and author(s) should be<br />sufficient to find the original distribution (e.g. via search engines).<br /><blockquote>(c) You make best efforts to ensure that further Distribution of the<br />Software and/or<br />Modifications (including further Modifications) is subject to the<br />obligations set forth in<br />this Sec. 3.1 (a), (b), and (c).<br /><br />7.1 If You have knowledge that exercising rights granted by this License<br />*infringes *third party's<br />intellectual property rights, including without limitation copyright and<br />patent rights, You must take<br />reasonable steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or<br />newsgroups) to inform ESA and<br />those who received the Software about the infringement.<br /><br />7.2 You acknowledge that continuing to use the Software knowing that<br />such use infringes third party<br />rights (e.g. after receiving a third party notification of infringement)<br />*would *expose you to the risk of<br />being considered as intentionally infringing third party rights. In such<br />event You *should *acquire the<br />respective rights or modify the Software so that the Modification is<br />non-infringing.<br /><br />The problem here is that neither ESA nor the licensee is the court.<br />Neither party can determine that the software under this license<br />reliably /does /infringe upon any third party's intellectual property<br />rights, /unless a court has already ruled to that effect. /Nor is any<br />third-party notification actually proof of infringement unless there is<br />an existing ruling. I could thus make a case that 7.1 and 7.2 apply<br />/only after /a court ruling. Which is rather late for the sort of<br />notification you're asking for. I'm sure counsel wants to know earlier<br />than that.</blockquote><br />"Knowledge" means positive knowledge of an infringement, for example if<br />the user is subject to infringement claims himself, has or gets positive<br />knowledge of infringement claims against a third party or if the user's<br />own intellectual property rights are being infringed. You could indeed<br />argue that a court ruling is required for positive "knowledge", unless<br />your own IPR is being infringed. However, a notification obligation of<br />any "potential infringement" would in our opinion put an unreasonable<br />compliance burden on the users/licensees, since any potential case must<br />be reported, regardless of the likelihood.<br />It shall only be clear that any user has to react immediately to a<br />reported infringement claim so that the infringement is stopped in due time.<br /><br />Kind regards, Carsten<br /><br />_______________________________________________<br />License-review mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br /><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a></blockquote> </body>
</html>