<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear License Review,</p>
<p>At the Board meeting on June 25, 2021, the Board adopted the
recommendation of the License Committee and did NOT approve the
Ritchey Permissive License v11 as an Open Source Initiative
Certified license.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">Chair, License Committee <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">Open Source Initiative</div>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/22/21 12:08 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:657e4899-5f90-bd3c-e1ba-e00e88f57266@opensource.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>