<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi, the copyright under the date just implies the creators and authors of this license, just how the GPL-2.0 License has a copyright notice for the Free Software Foundation or the APSL-2.0 License has Apple, or the eCos-2.0 License (though eCost is probably a stretch) also mentions the Free Software Foundation. <br></div><div>In regards to the comment:<br></div><div> The terms copied, modified,
redistributed, and published are not non-commercial by definition or
nature, so the attempted clarification only creates confusion.</div><div>This actually reiterates my point. I am mentioning <i>or even used for commercial purposes within the context of this license. </i>because I want to specify that this license allows for both non-commercial and commercial usage. Most people wouldn't iterate as someone releasing a license where the person who reuses the software must freely do it on only a commercial basis where they make money for themselves as an entity. This is a stretch by logical means. Even if somehow somebody did iterate that including ",or even used for commercial purposes" as "only used for commercial purposes" (which isn't the case), that point is demolished when I state:</div><div><span class="gmail-im"><h5>Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation
containing this license is understood to be fully "AS IS",
no claims are made in regards to safety, security, warranty,
usability, or other form of merchantability and
market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders,
authors, or publishers are to be held liable for any claims,
damage or results from usage of what have been licensed
under this license.</h5><div>When I state:</div><div><span class="gmail-im"><p>Said agreement which is within the last paragraph
prior to this sentence is meant to be taken as a general
consensus, but not legally enforceable. Again for context,
the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends
with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the
boundaries of being legally enforceable and within the
duties of oneselve's actions. The rest of the license
which includes the copyright notice and its context is
within a legally enforceable context. For secondary
context, the rest of the license refers to anything
outside of that said paragraph.</p><p>I clearly indicate that the mission statement is non-operative or non-legally binding. The lawyer in you states that if it isn't binding, what is the point of keeping it in there. Part of the reason this license was created was to inspire others to build technology for the betterment of humanity. Lots of big tech companies that are being hailed as heroes of open source engage insurveillance capitalism, child labor, and numerous other things within the realm of being outside of ethics. Obviously, a small open source license wouldn't change that, but it is important to have conversations in tech about these sorts of things.</p><p>Anyways, I have made sure to explicitly state that the mission statement isn't legally binding. That part is on the license. The whole document isn't to be looked at section by section but as a whole. Many legally binding documents have non-binding clauses or mission statements.</p><p>So my counter claims are: <br></p><p>- I wanted to explicitly state commercial usage as part of the list to state that commercial usage is allowed</p><p>- I have seperated commercial usage using, ",or even" and with what was implied prior</p><p>- I have also said no claims are made in regards to usability</p><p>- A core feature of this license agreement is the de facto mission statement</p><p>If you look at other licenses as well such as MirOS, the license states:</p><p>We believe you are not liable for work inserted which is intellectual<br>
property of third parties, if you were not aware of the fact, act ap‐<br>
propriately as soon as you become aware of that problem, seek an ami‐<br>
cable solution for all parties, and never knowingly distribute a work<br>
without being authorised to do so by its licensors.</p><p>Source: <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/MirOS">https://opensource.org/licenses/MirOS</a></p><p>Stating "We believe" and what follows in regards to liability is ambiguous and non-legally applicable or binding to include in a license. I can go over back and forth a series of OSI licenses that break the fourth wall for lawyers. However, this isn't my intended case or counterclaim. My counterclaim is that I have by technical means put a non-binding clause for the part that is non-binding within a binding agreement. This can be done, because the whole agreement is enforceable, so is the non-binding clause thus not violating OSD. I made assurances in regards to which aspects of the agreements are non-binding clauses.</p><p>I hope this answers your inquiries and I very much appreciate your feedback.</p></span></div></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 11:36 PM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I've marked up the license to omit non-operative language below. If
the words aren't meant to have any effect, they shouldn't be there.
The only thing that can happen is that the words will be used in
ways that create unintended consequences, so it's best just not to
have them at all.<br>
<br>
For example, your license states "or even used for commercial
purposes <i>within the context of this license</i>." I assume you
believe you have defined the "context" as the paragraph that starts
"The context of this license." However, that paragraph says the
context "<i>includes</i>" keeping the original license text, etc.,
not that the context is limited to only the elements in that
paragraph. The word "includes" must mean that the "context" is more
than what is described in just that paragraph. A court might think
that it also include the next paragraph, with "agrees to at
goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of humanity
not meant with the intention to harm a human being ..." At best,
someone interpreting the license has mixed information - what is the
rest of the context if it isn't what the next paragraph talks about,
but the next paragraph is also defined as non-operative. You have
created a document that is unclear, which may result in it being
construed in a way you didn't intend. If you don't want the "Anybody
... human mind" paragraph to be legally operative, it should be
removed. If it is legally operative, then it violates OSD6.<br>
<br>
The clause "or even used for commercial purposes within the context
of this license" is unnecessary. The terms copied, modified,
redistributed, and published are not non-commercial by definition or
nature, so the attempted clarification only creates confusion. It
would be like saying "add to the stew onions, carrots and potatoes,
or even fresh ones." There would be no reason to think you couldn't
use fresh ones, so it just creates ambiguity by throwing freshness
in as a concept.<br>
<br>
What is a "permissive notice" that isn't the license text itself?<br>
<br>
You have three copyright notices, one that is "// Insert information
of license holder," one for Stark Drones Corporation, and one for
Andrew Magdy Kamal. What the license says "the copyright notice
above version and year is meant to be modified," which one are you
talking about? I can assume you meant the one that is "// Insert
information of license holder," but what are the other two supposed
to mean? Are those the copyright notices of the license itself? If
so, that is very unclear and anyone looking at the license file
would think Stark Drones Corporation and Andrew Magdy Kamal are
authors of the code, not the license itself. If you want to put a
copyright notice on the license, you need to make that much clearer.
You could perhaps put it at the end, something like "Copyright for
the license text is ...." <br>
<br>
Now suppose there is a license where someone has added their own
name as instructed. So now the license reads:<br>
<br>
"Copyright © 2020 Copyright Owner <br>
<br>
Version 1, 10th November 2020<br>
<br>
Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation<br>
Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal"<br>
<br>
But you have an explanatory paragraph, that must remain intact, that
has a whole description about some string that is "// Insert
information of license holder" that is no longer in the license
text. A reader will be mystified by that paragraph because it's not
talking about anything they are seeing.<br>
<br>
I have pointed out flaws but you should not it as a suggestion that
you can revise the license and it will be approved. My point was to
demonstrate that it is quite difficult to write even a simple
license. I see no benefit to this license even if you adopted all my
suggestions; there are many well-accepted, commonly used permissive
licenses and I don't see this one as ever reaching a point where it
is an improvement on them.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
(919) 800-8033<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>On 12/25/2020 7:50 PM, Andrew Nassief
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi, I would like to submit my license for approval. The
LICENSE.md file can be seen on <a href="https://github.com/StarkDrones/OIN/blob/main/LICENSE.md" target="_blank">GitHub</a> with its available
markdown. For sake of simplicity, here is the raw text of the
license:</div>
<div>
<h2><strong>Released under the Open Innovation License</strong></h2>
<p>Copyright © // Insert information of license holder</p>
<p><em>Version 1, 10th November 2020</em></p>
<p><em>Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation</em><br>
<em>Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal</em></p>
<p>This project is licensed under the <em>Open Innovation
License</em>. This means any code, file, diagrams, data
format, or other innovation containing this license within
it can be copied, modified, redistributed, <b>or</b>
published<strike>, or even used for commercial purposes
within the context of this license</strike>.</p>
<h5>Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation
containing this license is understood to be fully "AS IS",
no claims are made in regards to safety, security, warranty,
usability, or other form of merchantability and
market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders,
authors, or publishers are to be held liable for any claims,
damage or results from usage of what have been licensed
under this license.</h5>
<p>The context of this license includes: Keeping this original
license text verbatim and permissive notice, as well as the
copyright notice included in any redistribution of said
project. Project is defined as what is using this license.
For purposes of context, the copyright notice above version
and year is meant to be modified for whomsoever publishes or
releases "any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other
innovation", so that they can include their information.
After modifying, the comment saying "// Insert information
of license holder" which starts with // can be removed. This
current paragraph however, will remain in-tact.</p>
<p><strike>Anybody who releases software under the "Open
Innovation License" agrees to at goodwill, build or
release technology for the betterment of humanity not
meant with the intention to harm a human being. They agree
to a prima facie moral duty through consequential
deontology to understand that technology should be within
the concept of moral good or outcomes that are morally
right and/or ethical. They agree at goodwill to promote
the advancement of humanity and civilization as a whole.
They agree to a sense of adventurement, edification, and
the expansion of the human mind.</strike></p>
<strike>
</strike>
<p><strike>Said agreement which is within the last paragraph
prior to this sentence is meant to be taken as a general
consensus, but not legally enforceable. Again for context,
the last paragraph which starts with "Anybody" and ends
with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the
boundaries of being legally enforceable and within the
duties of oneselve's actions. The rest of the license
which includes the copyright notice and its context is
within a legally enforceable context. For secondary
context, the rest of the license refers to anything
outside of that said paragraph.</strike></p>
<p>____</p>
<p><em>Rationale:</em><br>
</p>
<p>I wanted to release this license for a variety of different
reasons. Infact, I made many posts in regards to why this
license is unique and valuable, and found many developers
willing to adapt this license through small innovation
challenges. The license was made on the basis of promoting a
mission statement on ethical technology within the license
as well as not being specific to only software i.e. files,
diagrams, data format or any other innovation. <br>
</p>
<p>We also wanted to make sure that the license is adaptable.
Many open source licenses require you to put tons of header
files for compliance. We wanted to make a license that just
requires you to contain the license file in your directory.
While many other open source licenses also do that or follow
in similar footsteps, we weren't able to find one that met
all these unique qualities.</p>
<p>Currently, a big inspiration for this license was the idea
of promoting free and open software as well as a mission
statement on ethical technologies. We found that many of the
big tech companies that are hailed as heroes of open source
or doing open source initiatives, built technologies that
are harmful to human activity. A technically non-legally
enforceable mission statement within an enforceable open
source license was the way to go. We also made sure to go
out of our way to promote the ideals of open source and free
and redistributive software.</p>
<p><em>Distinguish:</em></p>
<p>I looked at a variety of different open source licenses.
The standard being MIT, then BSD+Patent, ZLib, CDDL, CPAL,
CPL, CAL, BSL, and the AFL license. I feel like MIT, ZLIB,
and the Boost licenses focus on redistribution and code.
Those are the standards. The open patent licenses and other
licenses focus on derived original work. However, none of
them tried going to the same extent I wanted in terms of
being specific in regards to data formats or general
consensus and mission. I believe this is an important thing
to take into account.</p>
<p><em>Legal review:</em></p>
<p>Currently I have submitted this to SPDX as well for review
through their GitHub/Website. However, the review time to
get approval and receive SPDX identifiers can be many
months. I submitted in November and decided to submit to OSI
while I wait. As for reviewing the context of language
myself and actual legal review, I have thought out reviews
through my own legal council and self judgement as a
researcher familiar with these types of languages.</p>
<p><em>Proliferation category:</em> <br>
</p>
<p>I don't necessarily need to be in a Proliferation category
as of now, as many of the licenses on your site are not in a
category. However, I would eventually want to get into the <i>Licenses
that are popular and widely used or with strong
communities </i>category.<i><br>
</i></p>
<p><em></em></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-review mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<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>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> 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>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Andrew Magdy Kamal<br><a href="http://andsocialrew.wall.fm" target="_blank">http://andsocialrew.wall.fm</a></div>