<div dir="ltr">Because the license is designed to be short, it doesn't define terms (eg: "lawful"). Instead it binds to a jurisdiction to set precedence for how a term may be interpreted. For example the Copyright Act itself uses the terms lawful, unlawful, and lawfully. So does the Criminal Code. The term lawful is also used in the Constitution Acts going back as far as 1867. It's important to note that none of these define the term either, but they are citable examples of established use. In comparable licenses which don't bind to a jurisdiction, or include definitions, a term might seem clear to the reader, and then be interpreted differently by the law, especially if the licensor, and licensee are from different places. In this instance, lawful would seem to mean permitted by law which is the intent. As for what actions would be considered lawful, that would depend on what is being licensed, because that determines which laws are relevant. If you're using the license on a copyrighted work then the Copyright Act would be applicable to what is lawful. On a patented work the Patent Act would be. Etc. You do raise a good point though that it's questionable whether the license is actually extending rights defined in such acts, or merely reminding people they have to adhere to them. <br><br>Section 6 of the OSD states "must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". Cambridge Dictionary defines endeavour as "to try to do something". By that definition prohibiting unlawful activities would be a violation. This would also mean that nearly every other OSI approved license violates section 6 too though. Nearly all OSI approved licenses require retention of license text in copies, and restrict licensees to redistributing under the same license. Not doing so is unlawful in accordance with Copyright law, but these licenses discriminates against that unlawful endeavor. Some licenses such as the 3-Clause BSD license also require binaries to display a notice. Not doing so is unlawful, and requiring users to prohibits trying to do something. So aside from the Zero-Clause BSD License there probably aren't any OSI approved licenses that don't to some extent violate section 6 of the OSD.<br><br>This license does go far beyond the typical disclaimers. As another member mentioned, sometimes things can't be disclaimed. This license uses a security in layers approach to try and protect the licensor in that event by shifting responsibilities downstream. So long as each person in the chain retains the license text when distributing, they'll have disclaimers protecting them. If they don't, they'll hopefully only be putting themselves at risk since they inherited that responsibility. Some people may not desire that from a license, but that's what having different licenses is for; providing a selection. If anything this unique feature is proof that this license is bringing something new to the table, and not just duplicating what's already there.<br><br>The phrase "the material" is used consistently through the document, and first appears in the statement "receives material licensed under this license [...] the material" so by reference it has inferred "the material" means content the licensee received under these terms. In a legal dispute that pattern of use may be cited to clarify the meaning. It also doesn't contain any statements which infer or state further restrictions such as terms regarding other peoples' work, or the sorts of projects it can be included in. All it states is this stuff is under this license, and you can't change that. This is common. For example the 3-Clause BSD license requires all code to remain under the 3-Clause BSD license.<br><br>Binding of the license to a jurisdiction isn't about ignoring that a particular jurisdiction might be inconvenient to some users. Quite the opposite. It's about minimizing the risk of the licensor since they're the one taking the greatest risk by sharing their work freely. When you buy a product from a company, and sue them for damages they may have disclaimers or limitations to protect them, but if those fail they have their profits to pay legal fees, and payouts with. People giving their work away for free to the open source community don't, so they may want greater protections. This license tries to provide that. Imagine being sued in one of those countries with unjust laws you hinted at.<br><br>Whether or not I agree with your reading of the statements is irrelevant. As the author, my interpretation is biased. I appreciate your detailed feedback.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:11 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>
Speaking personally, not in my role with OSI.<br>
<br>
I find the license insolubly ambiguous.<br>
<br>
In the phrase "permission<i><b> to do anything lawful </b></i>with
the material which does not violate this license" the concept of
lawfulness begs the question. By not saying what is a lawful use, we
have no way of knowing what an unlawful use would be. Someone could
say "I meant only to allow you to distribute the software, not
modify the software, and modifying is unlawful under copyright law
so you are therefore in breach of this license." Maybe your
intention is to allow all permitted uses under copyright law. But
what about patent law? What about moral rights? Copyright and patent
are exclusionary rights, so by not saying what <i>is </i>allowed,
i.e., what you have made lawful by the grant of the license, we are
left only to guess. It is completely unworkable.<br>
<br>
Others have pointed out a different interpretation of the "lawful"
term, which is that one cannot use the software in ways that break
the law. This is a clear violation of OSD6, no discrimination
against fields of endeavor. It's easy to say that it's a good thing
to prohibit unlawful uses, but what about laws in some countries
that violate fundamental human rights? <br>
<br>
"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)." So you are saying that the licensee has the legal
obligation to provide a warranty and indemnify the licensor from
liability for any of the licensor's misrepresentations, obligations,
damages and guarantees? That, no matter what the licensor's
wrongdoing, it is the licensee who has to take on the legal burden
of it instead of the licensor? That is far beyond any other open
source license - disclaimers of liability for everyone are allowed,
and an entity can voluntarily choose to take on a duty, like
offering a warranty, but forcing it on the licensee is unacceptable
in my view. And what about the next downstream, does that person
accumulate the liability from everyone that is upstream of them? You
stated in your rationale that there is not requirement that this
license be included with the distribution, but you have replaced it
with something far more draconian.<br>
<br>
"The material must entirely remain solely under this license." You
have claimed that this license is similar to the permissive licenses
like BSD and MIT. However, the phrase "remain solely under this
license" can be read to mean "and not any other license," i.e., you
cannot combine software under this license with any software that
also militates compliance with a different license, most notably the
GPL. So it creates a license incompatibility issue. License
incompatibility in and of itself is not a reason to reject the
license, but the fact that the wording can be read both ways means
it has insufficient clarity. <br>
<br>
Other's have discussed the improvidence of have a mandatory
jurisdiction for claims. Your statement that the license may
therefore not be appealing to those outside of Canada ignores that
there are two parties to a license, the licensor, who might be in
Canada, but your users will be all over the world and you are
forcing them into a venue that may be impossible for them.<br>
<br>
You will undoubtedly disagree with my reading of your sentences.
However, the fact that I can read them differently from what you
intended shows what others have said, writing an unambiguous
license, particularly a short one, requires special skills. I
believe this license is unacceptable.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
<div>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>On 2/13/2021 7:30 PM, J. Ritchey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Submitting 'Ritchey Permissive License v11' for
approval.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">License Text:</font><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font size="4">Rationale:</font><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>
<font size="4">Distinguish:</font><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>
<font size="4">Legal review:</font><br>
No legal review of this license has been done. None is planned.<br>
<br>
<font size="4">Proliferation Category:</font><br>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</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>