<html><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>Da: </b>"Russell Nelson" <nelson@crynwr.com><br><b>A: </b>"License submissions for OSI review" <license-review@lists.opensource.org>, "Andrew" <andrewjskatz@gmail.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"Myriam Ayass" <Myriam.Ayass@cern.ch>, "Chris McCormick" <chris.mccormick@moorcrofts.com><br><b>Inviato: </b>Martedì, 21 luglio 2020 21:25:21<br><b>Oggetto: </b>Re: [License-review] For Approval – CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Strongly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-S-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Weakly Reciprocal (SPDX: CERN-OHL-W-2.0); CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2– Permissive (SPDX: CERN-OHL-P-2.0)<br></blockquote></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><p>This submission is in good order, and these licenses comply with
the OSD. We should approve these licenses.<br></p></blockquote>Hi, <br><div><br></div></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">late comments, I have been off the list for too long, sorry.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>I also find no major flaws in this license and as a general comment it seems a good effort to improve the earlier version.<br></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">My only comment is that Section 5 seems a bit convoluted. It initially reads as a permission, while it eventually becomes a special case of conveyance-not-actually-so (non distribution) and attribution of the resulting copyright (?). The last bit seems to be better covered by the internal agreement between the parties and should not belong in a public license. While it is not a cause of non-compliance with OSD, I find it disturbing and potentially a source of unnecessary conflict, although the last period is not construed as a condition. Sorry if this is duplicative of other discussions occurred elsewhere.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">My opinion is therefore that the license should be approved, but I urge considering a rewording of Section 5 in future versions and if at all possible in this one. I would phrase it to clarify that as a special case, if the licensees contracts development outside and it retains both control over the project, further distribution and is the assignee of this development, then this is considered as an internal use and development and not conveyance for other purposes of the license and the accordingly assigned rights are considered belonging to the licensee as if modifications were made by them.<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>All the best,<br></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">Carlo<br data-mce-bogus="1"></div></div></body></html>