<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Dear License Review,<br>
<br>
Below is the recommendation of the License Committee on the Ritchey
Permissive License v11. I apologize that the submission for vote to
the Board was delayed.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela Chestek<br>
Chair, License Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
<br>
License: Ritchey Permissive License v11 (Exhibit A)<br>
Submitted: February 13, 2021,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-February/005080.html">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-February/005080.html</a><br>
Decision date: due no later than the first Board meeting after
April 13, 2021<br>
<br>
License Review Committee Recommendation: <br>
<br>
<i>Resolved that it is the opinion of the OSI that the Ritchey
Permissive License v11 does not conform to the OSD and assure
software freedom and the license is therefore not approved as an
Open Source Initiative Certified license.</i><br>
<br>
<u>Rationale Document</u><br>
<br>
No one but the license submitter was of the view that the license
was suitable for approval. The license is poorly drafted and, as a
result, there are several places where the license can be
interpreted in different ways. The most heavily discussed license
term was that permission is only granted for “lawful” purposes. To
the extent that the statement means that the licensed content
cannot be used for certain purposes because the activity may be
unlawful, (which is the license drafter’s view,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-February/005085.html">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2021-February/005085.html</a>)
the restriction is a violation of OSD 6, “No Discrimination
Against Fields of Endeavor.” <br>
<br>
Some commenters interpreted the reference to “lawful” as
referring, not to extrinsic law, but to rights granted by the
license. In this case, the phrase “permission to do anything
lawful with the material which does not violate this license”
cannot be construed. Because copyright is an exclusionary right, a
statement of what use is permitted is a required element of a
license. For example, distribution of a copyrighted work is not
lawful unless permission has been granted, so if the license does
not expressly state that distribution is allowed, distribution
will not be “lawful.” Thus, the document might not be granting any
rights at all. <br>
<br>
Another example of ambiguity is that the license drafter claims
that the license is not a copyleft license; however, it is unclear
whether the statement “The material must entirely remain solely
under this license” refers also to derivative works of the
licensed “material” or not. <br>
<br>
These ambiguities allow for interpretations that do not conform to
the OSD and assure software freedom.<br>
<br>
<u>Exhibit A</u><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>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/13/2021 7:30 PM, J. Ritchey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF5+W0K35ewfR_wng=8FW6EZ+jRt38rjc+Mon6Q3OEN7otR7YQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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 class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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 opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>