<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body ><div style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div>Andrew,<br></div><div><br></div><div>I recently submitted (and withdrew) a license from OSI consideration. McCoy is an attorney and I would suggest that although you strongly believe your license is clear and unambiguous, there are issues which experienced attorneys are capable of identifying and rectifying. My suggestion is simply to take the advice given and truly consider whether this license submission is error free and or as others have said to ask for immediate vote without further comment. My concern is that your license would be rejected and that’s in no way in the interest of anyone here. I know what it’s like to believe in your work and your standing and feel like it’s under attack, but the folks here really truly do wish to help and see your license succeed. </div><br><div data-zbluepencil-ignore="true" id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn"><div><span class="highlight" style="background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span class="font" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size: 13.333333px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none;">Regards,</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><p style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none" class=""><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span class="font" style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px">Wayne M. Thornton, B.S., CPDT<br>Co-Founder & Project Manager<br>VIRATRACE©<br>720-766-0254 – Direct</span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p style="margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none" class=""><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><span class="font" style="font-family:Calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size: 11pt; margin: 0px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193)"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px"><a style="color: rgb(89, 143, 222); cursor: pointer" href="https://www.viratrace.org/" target="_blank">https://www.viratrace.o</a>rg</span></span></span></span><br></span></span></span></p><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: none"><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193)"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px"></span></span></span><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px"><br>Be sure to join our </span></span><a style="color: rgb(89, 143, 222); cursor: pointer" href="https://teams.microsoft.com/join/lw83179ktnqf" target="_blank"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193)"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px">Microsoft Teams</span></span></span></a><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:13.333333px"> channel for updates and to contribute!<br><br>This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail. Thank you.</span></span></span></div></div><br><div style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px; line-height: 0px;" class="zmail_extra_hr"><br></div><div style="clear: both;" data-zbluepencil-ignore="true" class="zmail_extra"><br><div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn1">---- On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 08:58:33 -0700 <b> <license-review-request@lists.opensource.org></b> wrote ----<br></div><br><blockquote style="margin: 0px;"><div>Send License-review mailing list submissions to <br> <a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a> <br> <br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <br> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a> <br> <br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to <br> <a href="mailto:license-review-request@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review-request@lists.opensource.org</a> <br> <br>You can reach the person managing the list at <br> <a href="mailto:license-review-owner@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review-owner@lists.opensource.org</a> <br> <br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific <br>than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..." <br> <br> <br>Today's Topics: <br> <br> 1. Re: Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License) <br> (Andrew Nassief) <br> <br> <br>---------------------------------------------------------------------- <br> <br>Message: 1 <br>Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:57:38 -0500 <br>From: Andrew Nassief <<a href="mailto:kamalandrew55@gmail.com" target="_blank">kamalandrew55@gmail.com</a>> <br>To: <a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law" target="_blank">mccoy@lexpan.law</a> <br>Cc: License submissions for OSI review <br> <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> <br>Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation <br> License) <br>Message-ID: <br> <CAHgfts+TDY3dGUYd4vtarSq7nPvb9Zj8FmQi=<a href="mailto:SKj3V7VGCSoRw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">SKj3V7VGCSoRw@mail.gmail.com</a>> <br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" <br> <br>Hi, the statement clearly says: <br>This means any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation <br>containing this license within it can be copied, modified, redistributed, <br>published, or even used for commercial purposes within the context of this <br>license. <br>It says or "even used for" doesn't indicate *have* to be used for. The <br>emphasis is the word "or". Also another emphasis is the words can be before <br>copied, modified, redistributed, published, or even used. 18 USC ? <br>31(a)(10) also indicates that *used for commercial purposes* as common <br>language in law for commercial usage. Using and or and/or to separate items <br>in a list is very common in a majority of open source licenses including <br>the MIT license. The context of commercial usage is clearly part of a list <br>and the context it is used clearly doesn't separate the usage as being <br>commercial but states that one can use said code freely for commercial use <br>if they wanted to. <br> <br>On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:44 AM McCoy Smith <<a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law" target="_blank">mccoy@lexpan.law</a>> wrote: <br> <br>> So by your formulation, the grant of ?use? is limited to commercial <br>> purposes. <br>> <br>> If so, it violates the OSD. <br>> <br>> You seem to think the license is entirely clear and doesn?t need any <br>> revision. That, of course, is your right, and you can request OSI approval <br>> as-is. I?d suggest that you might want to consider improving the language <br>> (portions of which are also non-idomatic), but you don?t have to listen to <br>> me, to any other commentor on this message board, the OSD, or the OSI Board <br>> for that matter. Perhaps you should suggest that OSI not accept comments on <br>> your draft, since you have determined it is unquestionably clear and <br>> OSD-conformant, and just do the Board vote on approval now. It might save <br>> everyone some time. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> *From:* Andrew Nassief <<a href="mailto:kamalandrew55@gmail.com" target="_blank">kamalandrew55@gmail.com</a>> <br>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 26, 2020 7:36 AM <br>> *To:* <a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law" target="_blank">mccoy@lexpan.law</a>; License submissions for OSI review < <br>> <a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> <br>> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation <br>> License) <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Hi in regards to your key points. I want to emphasize each one, one by one: <br>> <br>> The license agreement clearly states: <br>> <br>> This means any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation <br>> containing this license within it can be copied, modified, redistributed, <br>> published, or even used for commercial purposes within the context of this <br>> license. <br>> <br>> The context is "or even used for commercial purposes". "Or" grammatically <br>> separates the rest of the items from the list. It also emphasized it can be <br>> copied, modified, redistributed, published, etc. Saying "or even used" is <br>> different then "and only used", and "or even used" is the same thing as "or <br>> used". This simply just puts a non-restrictive clause on commercial usage <br>> of the technology, but it obviously doesn't imply restrictive clauses on <br>> open source usage or redistribution. This makes the license within the <br>> rules and standards of OSD. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Also I clearly indicate in the last paragraph of the agreement: <br>> <br>> Said agreement which is within the last paragraph prior to this sentence <br>> is meant to be taken as a general consensus, but not legally enforceable. <br>> Again for context, the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends <br>> with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the boundaries of being <br>> legally enforceable and within the duties of oneselve's actions. The rest <br>> of the license which includes the copyright notice and its context is <br>> within a legally enforceable context. For secondary context, the rest of <br>> the license refers to anything outside of that said paragraph. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> This is because mission statements are ambiguous and not legally binding, <br>> however violating an open source license is a form of IP or copyright <br>> infringement to an extent. The whole document is to be looked at as a <br>> whole, henceforth the legal applicability and the non-bindingness of the <br>> mission statement still applies. There are also other permissive licenses <br>> such as WTFPL that I would argue are perhaps more legally ambiguous in <br>> language. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> The only other inquiry you have is that OIN may accidentally suggest <br>> affiliation with Open Innovation Network. The term open innovation is used <br>> alot in technology and the Open Innovation Network is not considered an <br>> open source license. I was originally going to be using OIL as an acronym, <br>> but I think it may present unwarranted liabilities making an acronym for a <br>> license after a commodity. Also I was going to adapt OINN, but I didn't see <br>> a need to have two Ns. Since there are actually no license agreements using <br>> OIN as an acronym, I still think it should be fine. The Open Innovation <br>> Network acquires patents and licenses them as royalty free as long as <br>> people who use them don't agree to make patents against Linux Systems (See <br>> <a href="http://xml.coverpages.org/OIN-Announce.html" target="_blank">http://xml.coverpages.org/OIN-Announce.html</a>). If we were going to be <br>> using the same logic on acronyms one can say that the COPL license might <br>> have people confused w/ Concurrency Oriented Programming Languages or that <br>> NTP may be affiliated with New Trade Policy or India's New Telecom Policy <br>> or Nordic Innovation's NTP program. Outside of specific license acronyms <br>> like ZLIB, the same can be said about other licenses. Since OIN isn't an <br>> open source license identifier currently, I still want to proceed with it <br>> as an acronym and think for simplicity's sake it should be fine for now. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 10:02 AM McCoy Smith <<a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law" target="_blank">mccoy@lexpan.law</a>> wrote: <br>> <br>> This one probably needs some careful legal and grammatical review as it is <br>> very awkwardly drafted and potentially confusing/legally ambiguous. Its <br>> current draft is probably not approvable. <br>> <br>> The grant itself is drafted in a way that could be read to restrict the <br>> license to only commercial uses, which obviously would violate the OSD. <br>> <br>> The context statement could also be read as a legally binding restriction <br>> on the license grant (the use of ?agree? is mainly the problem), although <br>> it seems the intent is **not** to have those statements to be legally <br>> binding but instead merely suggestions. I?m not sure the language used <br>> accomplishes that goal. <br>> <br>> The interesting issue this license raises is whether legally non-binding <br>> statements that would, if legally binding, violate the OSD, can <br>> nevertheless satisfy the OSD. I tend to think if they are drafted in a way <br>> that they are unambiguously non-legally binding, they probably would be, <br>> but it does present an interesting test of the OSD and I suspect once a <br>> license of that sort is approved, you will likely have many submissions of <br>> licenses with non-legally binding statements of ethical principles <br>> following. <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> I?d also suggest the use of ?OIN? as the shorthand name of the license is <br>> likely a problem and it would likely suggest an affiliation with the Open <br>> Invention Network, which I?m pretty sure this license isn?t. <br>> <br>> *From:* License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>> *On <br>> Behalf Of *Andrew Nassief <br>> *Sent:* Friday, December 25, 2020 4:50 PM <br>> *To:* <a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a> <br>> *Subject:* [License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation <br>> License) <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Hi, I would like to submit my license for approval. The LICENSE.md file <br>> can be seen on GitHub <br>> <<a href="https://github.com/StarkDrones/OIN/blob/main/LICENSE.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/StarkDrones/OIN/blob/main/LICENSE.md</a>> with its <br>> available markdown. For sake of simplicity, here is the raw text of the <br>> license: <br>> *Released under the Open Innovation License* <br>> <br>> Copyright ? // Insert information of license holder <br>> <br>> *Version 1, 10th November 2020* <br>> <br>> *Copyright ? 2020 Stark Drones Corporation* <br>> *Copyright ? 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal* <br>> <br>> This project is licensed under the *Open Innovation License*. This means <br>> any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing this <br>> license within it can be copied, modified, redistributed, published, or <br>> even used for commercial purposes within the context of this license. <br>> Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing this <br>> license is understood to be fully "AS IS", no claims are made in regards to <br>> safety, security, warranty, usability, or other form of merchantability and <br>> market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders, authors, or <br>> publishers are to be held liable for any claims, damage or results from <br>> usage of what have been licensed under this license. <br>> <br>> The context of this license includes: Keeping this original license text <br>> verbatim and permissive notice, as well as the copyright notice included in <br>> any redistribution of said project. Project is defined as what is using <br>> this license. For purposes of context, the copyright notice above version <br>> and year is meant to be modified for whomsoever publishes or releases "any <br>> code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation", so that they can <br>> include their information. After modifying, the comment saying "// Insert <br>> information of license holder" which starts with // can be removed. This <br>> current paragraph however, will remain in-tact. <br>> <br>> Anybody who releases software under the "Open Innovation License" agrees <br>> to at goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of humanity <br>> not meant with the intention to harm a human being. They agree to a prima <br>> facie moral duty through consequential deontology to understand that <br>> technology should be within the concept of moral good or outcomes that are <br>> morally right and/or ethical. They agree at goodwill to promote the <br>> advancement of humanity and civilization as a whole. They agree to a sense <br>> of adventurement, edification, and the expansion of the human mind. <br>> <br>> Said agreement which is within the last paragraph prior to this sentence <br>> is meant to be taken as a general consensus, but not legally enforceable. <br>> Again for context, the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends <br>> with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the boundaries of being <br>> legally enforceable and within the duties of oneselve's actions. The rest <br>> of the license which includes the copyright notice and its context is <br>> within a legally enforceable context. For secondary context, the rest of <br>> the license refers to anything outside of that said paragraph. <br>> <br>> ____ <br>> <br>> *Rationale:* <br>> <br>> I wanted to release this license for a variety of different reasons. <br>> Infact, I made many posts in regards to why this license is unique and <br>> valuable, and found many developers willing to adapt this license through <br>> small innovation challenges. The license was made on the basis of promoting <br>> a mission statement on ethical technology within the license as well as not <br>> being specific to only software i.e. files, diagrams, data format or any <br>> other innovation. <br>> <br>> We also wanted to make sure that the license is adaptable. Many open <br>> source licenses require you to put tons of header files for compliance. We <br>> wanted to make a license that just requires you to contain the license file <br>> in your directory. While many other open source licenses also do that or <br>> follow in similar footsteps, we weren't able to find one that met all these <br>> unique qualities. <br>> <br>> Currently, a big inspiration for this license was the idea of promoting <br>> free and open software as well as a mission statement on ethical <br>> technologies. We found that many of the big tech companies that are hailed <br>> as heroes of open source or doing open source initiatives, built <br>> technologies that are harmful to human activity. A technically non-legally <br>> enforceable mission statement within an enforceable open source license was <br>> the way to go. We also made sure to go out of our way to promote the ideals <br>> of open source and free and redistributive software. <br>> <br>> *Distinguish:* <br>> <br>> I looked at a variety of different open source licenses. The standard <br>> being MIT, then BSD+Patent, ZLib, CDDL, CPAL, CPL, CAL, BSL, and the AFL <br>> license. I feel like MIT, ZLIB, and the Boost licenses focus on <br>> redistribution and code. Those are the standards. The open patent licenses <br>> and other licenses focus on derived original work. However, none of them <br>> tried going to the same extent I wanted in terms of being specific in <br>> regards to data formats or general consensus and mission. I believe this is <br>> an important thing to take into account. <br>> <br>> *Legal review:* <br>> <br>> Currently I have submitted this to SPDX as well for review through their <br>> GitHub/Website. However, the review time to get approval and receive SPDX <br>> identifiers can be many months. I submitted in November and decided to <br>> submit to OSI while I wait. As for reviewing the context of language myself <br>> and actual legal review, I have thought out reviews through my own legal <br>> council and self judgement as a researcher familiar with these types of <br>> languages. <br>> <br>> *Proliferation category:* <br>> <br>> I don't necessarily need to be in a Proliferation category as of now, as <br>> many of the licenses on your site are not in a category. However, I would <br>> eventually want to get into the *Licenses that are popular and widely <br>> used or with strong communities *category. <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________ <br>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not <br>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the <br>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. <br>> <br>> License-review mailing list <br>> <a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a> <br>> <br>> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> <br>> Andrew Magdy Kamal <br>> <a href="http://andsocialrew.wall.fm" target="_blank">http://andsocialrew.wall.fm</a> <br>> <br> <br> <br>-- <br>Andrew Magdy Kamal <br><a href="http://andsocialrew.wall.fm" target="_blank">http://andsocialrew.wall.fm</a> <br>-------------- next part -------------- <br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed... <br>URL: <<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201226/07d43169/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201226/07d43169/attachment.html</a>> <br> <br>------------------------------ <br> <br>Subject: Digest Footer <br> <br>_______________________________________________ <br>License-review mailing list <br><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a> <br><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a> <br> <br> <br>------------------------------ <br> <br>End of License-review Digest, Vol 97, Issue 25 <br>********************************************** <br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div><br></body></html>