<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@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-GB link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>“</span>blacklist sublicensing the original work under different terms<span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>” is copyleft.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Under your construction, you’d have some sort of weird schroedinger’s license of some parts copyleft some parts not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Again, this is just poorly thought out and executed. You’re welcome to push for approval and tell everyone on the list they are wrong and you are right, but that generally is not an approach that has generally been successful, during the 15+ years or so that I’ve been on this mailing list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I’m going to withhold any further commentary as futile.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 14, 2021 11:04 AM<br><b>To:</b> mccoy@lexpan.law; License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>This license doesn't require changes to be released under it. That would be your material, not "the material". I have another license which does that, and it is most definitely copyleft. The purpose of the statement "material must entirely remain solely under this license" is to blacklist sublicensing the original work under different terms. <br><br>In regards to the jurisdiction clause. This license is short, and short licenses don't tend to define terms. This can have unexpected consequences if terms are interpreted differently than expected. Binding to a jurisdiction sets precedent for how terms might be interpreted in a legal dispute.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 8:00 AM McCoy Smith <<a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law">mccoy@lexpan.law</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I’m not sure your summary of this license is correct. This statement “The material must entirely remain solely under this license” seems to be a copyleft obligation (or would likely be interpreted as such).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I also think that OSI should adopt a policy that choice of law and jurisdiction/venue clauses should be disfavored without a significant explanation as to why they are needed, lest we get license variants for every possible jurisdiction on earth.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>There are other issues with the legal drafting on this but are not worth belabouring given no legal person was involved with this. Another policy I think OSI should adopt is that if some number (perhaps more than one) legal reviewers on the list raise concerns about the legal drafting of a submission, the submitter should be required to seek legal advice and have their legal adviser provide a response or redraft. There have been enough submissions recently with poor legal drafting that a rule like that will help focus any follow-on discussion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor blue'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>J. Ritchey<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, February 13, 2021 4:31 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Submitting 'Ritchey Permissive License v11' for approval.<br><br><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>License Text:</span><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Ritchey Permissive License v11:<br><br>Subject to the terms of this license, any legal entity who receives material licensed under this license is granted royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, permission to do anything lawful with the material which does not violate this license. Permissions are automatically revoked permanently from the legal entity upon breach of this license. The material is provided "as is", without implied fitness for any purpose. All obligations to the legal entity (including warranties, liabilities, representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees) are disclaimed by all parties involved (including the authors, rights holders, copyright holders, patent holders, and providers of the material). The legal entity is responsible for all consequences of sharing the material, and all obligations to recipients (including warranties, liabilities, representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees). The material must entirely remain solely under this license. This license is governed by the laws of the province of British Columbia (as they were on April 21, 2019), and the applicable laws of Canada (as they were on April 21, 2019). Any legal proceedings related to this license may only occur in the courts of British Columbia. The legal entity must be capable of being bound to this entire license, and agrees to be. If any portions of this license are unenforceable in applicable jurisdictions, this license cannot be accepted. The license text is provided under these terms.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Rationale:</span><br>First released in 2015 <i>(then named Comprehensible Open License)</i>, the Ritchey Permissive License aims to provide wide permissions, and ask little in return. It also strives to use plain language where possible <i>(this was the inspiration for its original name, and originally was prioritized above all else)</i>, and limit its size. The goals of this license are not unique, but the manner in which they are achieved is. That's what makes it a useful alternative to existing options, and is my rationale for submitting it.<br><br><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Distinguish:</span><br>In terms of comparison to already OSI approved licenses, the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is most similar to the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License (ISC), MIT No Attribution License, Fair License (Fair), MIT License, and 2-Clause BSD License. These licenses are all short, and grant wide permissions. But there are important differences.<br><br>Like the Zero-Clause BSD license, and MIT No Attribution License, this license does not require a copy of the license to be included when distributing a work. This feature could result in downstream recipients of a work never seeing important disclaimers. Unlike the Zero-Clause BSD, and MIT No Attribution License, this license tries to provide some protection against that by shifting these responsibilities to the person sharing the work.<br><br>Like the Zero-Clause BSD, Fair License (Fair), ISC License (ISC), MIT License, and 2-Clause BSD License it provides wide permissions. However they use a whitelist approach (eg: you can do x, y, z), and this license uses mostly a blacklist approach (eg: you can't do x, y, z). This difference is important, because x, y, and z may not be interpreted as intended. A whitelist approach prioritizes protecting a work. A blacklist approach prioritizes protecting the freedom of people to use the work. The MIT No Attribution License uses a blacklist approach, but the difference in wording may make one license more appealing than the other to potential users.<br><br>Like the Fair License (Fair) which refers to products as "works" the Ritchey Permissive License v11 uses the inclusive term "material" so that the license can be better used with things beyond software (eg: documentation, icon packs, etc). The difference in the definitions of these terms may make one license more desirable over the other to potential users.<br><br>Like the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License (ISC), Fair License (Fair), MIT License, and 2-Clause BSD License the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is a short license that doesn't include a definitions section like larger licenses do. Unlike them, it binds itself to a jurisdiction, setting a basis for how terms may be interpreted.<br><br><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Legal review:</span><br>No legal review of this license has been done. None is planned.<br><br><span style='font-size:13.5pt'>Proliferation Category:</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I suggest the "Other/Miscellaneous licenses" category, because of its ties to Canadian law. While the license isn't made for Canadians, this link may limit its appeal to foreigners.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>In summary, the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is similar to existing options, but differences in features, or wording make it a useful alternative. That's why it was made.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<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" 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" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>