<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">(In my personal capacity)<br>
<br>
Hi Andreas,<br>
<br>
Is English the language of the agreement? I want to make sure
we're reviewing the actual agreement itself, not your translation
of it. If the license is in German, we will need to have the
German version and a certified translation for review.<br>
<br>
Here are my concerns about this license:<br>
<br>
<u>Definition for "Subject Matter of the License" </u><br>
This is confusingly defined. It states that it means "the
copyrighted works of the software components ..." and continues
"as well as the other components protected under copyright, design
and/or patent law which are made available under this license ...
as well as the application and user documentation."<br>
<br>
First, with respect to the first use of the word "copyrighted,"
that suggests the license is going to be limited to just the
copyrightable content, not, for example, any patentable content.
The Apache license's parallel provision, which is the definition
for the "Work," is somewhat similarly flawed because it uses the
term of art "authorship," which one can read as limiting the
license to only copyright content. That's something we cannot
change in the Apache license, but I would suggest removing the
"copyrighted" limitation from this license to make sure it isn't
construed as limited to only content that is copyrightable. <br>
<br>
The same definition then refers to "as well as the other
components protected under copyright, design and/or patent law
which are made available under this license in accordance with a
copyright notice inserted into or attached to the work ...." This
clause seems unnecessary. If a third-party included component
states that it is under the Open Logistics License, then there is
no need to also mention it in the license for the larger work. It
will only cause problems in license interpretation.<br>
<br>
This phrase also likely goes beyond what may be the original scope
of the license for the "other component." The text says the Open
Logistics License applies to "the other components protected under
copyright, design and/or patent law ... <i><b>as well as the
application and user documentation</b></i>." This says that
the Open Logistics License will apply to the "application and user
documentation" of third party components, which would appear to be
regardless of what the licenses actually are for the application
and documentation as assigned by the owner of the third party
component. This is a copyleft - I assume it wasn't intended, but
that's what it says.<br>
<br>
If the intent was that the Open Logistics License applies to
"application and user documentation" for the originally licensed
code, not for the "other components," the sentence needs to be
restructured. At the moment it states fairly clearly (under US
English grammar rules) that the "application and user
documentation" is referring to the "other components," not the
larger work being licensed. <br>
<br>
Also, if the intention is that the Open Logistics License applies,
not only to the code, but to the "application and user
documentation," this isn't necessarily a problem but I question
whether it is a wise choice to require that text works, like
documentation, be under the same license as the software code. It
also seems to be a bit of a trap for the unwary; I expect that
most people believe that the software code and its documentation
can be separately licensed and won't realize that the code license
is also dictating the documentation license.<br>
<br>
Finally, what is the "application" and how does it differ from the
work being licensed?<br>
<u><br>
</u><u>Definition for "Source Code"</u><br>
It is defined as "in the programming language." I'm not sure why
this was changed from the common and well-understood concept of
that source code is the preferred form for making modifications. I
am just wary of new definitions when there is a well-understood
and perfectly serviceable definition. It is an opportunity to
create ambiguity about the meaning and intent for the term. What
problem were you trying to solve with this new definition? <br>
<br>
<u>Definition of "Object Code"</u><br>
What does the word "interim" do? Shouldn't the final manifestation
of the code that will run on the computer also be considered
"object code"? <br>
<br>
<u>§2 Granting of usage rights<br>
</u>Why is the grant so detailed? Why is it not simply a grant of
all the rights of the copyright owner, similar to what you have
done for the patent grant? What grant have you made that isn't
also a grant of one of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner? My concern about such a detailed grant, rather than one
that simply reiterates all the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner, is that there will be unintentional loopholes. I see from
your website that you intend to ensure that the rights as
described in the Supplementary Terms of Contract for the
Procurement of IT Services are clearly granted, but perhaps it
would be better to grant all copyright rights (e.g., reproduce,
distribute, exhibit, make available, etc.) and then add
"including, but not limited to," the rights you have enumerated.<br>
<br>
<u>§3 Grant of a patent license</u><br>
The grant of the copyright license is "for the terms of the
copyrights" but the term of the patent grant is not stated. I
don't think it's necessary to state a term since the grant is
perpetual, but having two clauses that say something different
invites challengers to find some distinction between the two. It
would also be easier to understand the license if the terms of the
patent license grant (non-exclusive, perpetual, etc.) was parallel
to the grant in the copyright license. It would then be clear that
the scope of both grants is meant to be the same.<br>
<br>
"Under no circumstances will anything in this Section 3 be
construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, a
license to any patent for which the respective Contributors have
not granted patent rights when they submitted their respective
Contributions." What is this sentence designed to do? The grant
clause defines the grant (patents that read on the contribution or
the whole work at the time of contribution). It's not necessary to
say that there is no grant of what is not granted.<br>
<br>
As to the patent license termination, it does not appear to be
limited to proceedings for infringement only of patents that were
licensed, but any patent infringement lawsuit at all brought by a
licensee. (This might also be McCoy's point.) Also, as I read it,
not only is the patent license terminated, but the entire license
is terminated: "all patent licenses which have been granted to You
under this License for the Subject Matter of the License <i><b>as
well as this License in itself</b></i> [that is, the Open
Logistics License as a whole] shall be deemed terminated ..." Was
that the intent? I know that termination provisions vary and I'm
not sure what the current view is on the appropriateness of
terminating the copyright license too, but there are OSI-approved
licenses that terminate the copyright grant too.<br>
<br>
I don't understand this sentence: "the Contributors are entitled
to decide in their own discretion to abandon respectively maintain
any patent designated by patent number upon delivery of the
Subject Matter of the License." It is the words "to abandon
respectively maintain any patent ... upon delivery of the Subject
Matter of the License" that are very unclear. What does "abandon
respectively maintain any patent" mean? It is saying both abandon
and maintain without any conjunction. <br>
<br>
You state "We have been asked by some partners of the current
project for which the license has been drafted to include the
possibility that they submit a list of patents they are not
willing to contribute to the work. This is reflected in the
license text. However, it is part of our workflow for the
inclusion of contributions into the project that no contributions
would be accepted where a patent that would be part of such list
of patents excluded from the contribution could be applicable." If
above sentence is where you are stating that a patentee may
withhold a patent license to its contribution, it will block the
license from being approved. A license that allows someone to
withhold patents from licensing is inconsistent with the OSD and
cannot be approved. It doesn't matter that your project doesn't
accept patent-encumbered software, in order for a license to be
approved by the OSI it must be acceptable for all users in all
circumstances.<br>
<br>
If instead this sentence is meant to advise that a patentee can
"release their patents in order to make them available to the
public" as you mention below, which I understand to mean
abandoning patent rights, I don't think it's necessary to say that
expressly in the license. No one using the software will insist
that a patentee maintain a patent.<br>
<br>
<u>§7 Limited warranty</u><u><br>
</u>"This License is granted free of charge and thus constitutes a
gift. Accordingly, any warranty is excluded." Is that the
undeniable conclusion under German law or is this statement
enforceable as a matter of contract? That wouldn't necessarily be
the case under US law. In the US a license grant isn't necessarily
a gift and one can't transform it into a gift by just saying so. <br>
<br>
Does the statement "The Subject Matter of the License is not
completed and may therefore contain ... additional patents of
Contributors" a reference to patents that are carved out of the
grant (not acceptable, as mentioned above)? If not, what is the
meaning?<br>
<br>
<u>§8 Limitation of liability</u><br>
Reiterating Eric's point that "Except in cases of intent and gross
negligence or causing personal injury" is unclear. Is it two
things, causing personal injury intentionally or causing personal
injury through gross negligence, or three things, an intentional
tort not related to personal injury, gross negligence not related
to personal injury, and personal injury no matter how caused, even
if only by simple negligence? Can the language be clarified?<br>
<br>
Regarding intentional infringement, as well as that the software
is "accurate, devoid of mistakes, complete and/or usable for any
purpose," are these claims that cannot be excluded by contract
under German law? <br>
<br>
As to others' comments about the applicable law provision, there
are other approved licenses that have choice-of-law provisions, so
I don't see that as a stopper. What I see as the stopper is the
ability to NOT grant a patent license for a patent that reads on a
contribution. That is a full stop for OSI approval.<br>
<br>
It also is not a well-drafted English-language license, as I've
described above. We have learned from experience that these
licenses can have lives that are longer than ours and a drafting
error or ambiguity will last forever. For that reason I believe it
is important that new open source licenses be written as cleanly
as possible. This one, though, has a number of flaws that I
believe make it unacceptable as a new open source license.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/30/2022 5:49 AM, Andreas Nettsträter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:FRYP281MB0237BD4555849E0904EAADB39BDD9@FRYP281MB0237.DEUP281.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style>@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;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Dear all,</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Finally, I managed to collect all input.
Therefore, I’m happy to address your concerns regarding our
license.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">I hope the clarifications help to understand
our approach a bit more. If there is need for more details,
please reply and I’ll try to answer faster than in the first
round.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Andreas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">1. Eric’s concern with regard to the
limitation of liability in the license<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">With regard to the comment on the limitation of
liability, Eric fears that contributors will be
inappropriately liable under the license. In general, we do
not see any reasonable claims against contributors since
contributors do not enter contracts with users but only
allow to use the IP they created with their contribution
(they grant rights of use). At least we are not aware of any
claims against contributors to open source software.
Furthermore, the limitation of liability clause itself does
not create any liability but limits the liability in case it
arises at all. Therefore, it should be beneficial to all
contributors. Since the license is drafted to comply at
least with German laws, a further limitation of liability
would not be possible once liability arose at all. E.g., the
comprehensive limitation of liability in the Apache 2.0
license would be void, if it had to be interpreted under
German (or other European laws). Since liability for
personal injury cannot be excluded under German laws on
general terms and conditions, adjustments to the close would
not benefit contributors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">2. Comments No. 1 and No. 2 by McCoy Smith<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">McCoy’s assumption is 100% correct, there is no
comprehensive European contract law any more than there is
in the USA. The adjustments made in the license compared to
the “original” Apache 2.0 license are made in accordance
with German law. We decided to use a choice of law clause in
order to be sure that the license is enforceable. As
mentioned above, in the case German laws applied wrt the
Apache 2.0 license, some of the provisions would be void and
therefore not enforceable. However, it is our understanding
that there have been few court cases wrt to open source
licenses and even fewer decisions that relied on the
enforceability of clauses that could/would be void under
appliable laws.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">3. Comment No. 3 by McCoy Smith:
<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">According to German law, one can only deviate
from or limit liability to a very limited extent by means of
general terms and conditions. Assuming that open source
software is handed over as a gift, we fortunately no longer
have comprehensive liability for simple negligence, but
"only" the liability specified in the licence (under German
laws). However, it is not possible to further deviate from
this liability in favour of the potentially liable party. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">4. Comment No. 4 by McCoy Smith:
<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">We see three issues here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">a. There seems to be a misunderstanding wrt the
last paragraph of the patent clause. Of course, any patentee
can unilaterally "revoke" his/her patent with the
consequence that it ceases to exist and therefore a right to
use it is no longer required. However, this is not a
revocation of a patent once granted in the sense that the
recipient would then no longer be allowed to use it. What we
have seen in the past is that companies and public
institutions have released their patents in order to make
them available to the public, therefore, we wanted to
include this statement in the license.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">b. The right to use the patent should be
limited to the part of the works that existed at the time of
filing a contribution. Otherwise, further contributions from
third parties could lead to a situation where a contributor
would have to grant rights to use patents which have not
been necessary at the time of the contribution. We think
this is in line with the patent clause in the Apache 2.0
license.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">c. The last issue might be the most important
for you. We have been asked by some partners of the current
project for which the license has been drafted to include
the possibility that they submit a list of patents they are
not willing to contribute to the work. This is reflected in
the license text. However, it is part of our workflow for
the inclusion of contributions into the project that no
contributions would be accepted where a patent that would be
part of such list of patents excluded from the contribution
could be applicable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Von:</b> License-review
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"><license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org></a>
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Andreas Nettsträter<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 16. Mai 2022 18:36<br>
<b>An:</b> License submissions for OSI review
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"><license-review@lists.opensource.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open
Logistics License<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Dear all, <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">I'm still waiting for the final
input from all partners. Corona/Covid are still causing
longer delays here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Sorry for that. I hope that I can
provide feedback until next week the latest.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Andreas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="98%" size="2" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="color:black"> License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>>
on behalf of Andreas Nettsträter <<a
href="mailto:andreas.nettstraeter@openlogisticsfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">andreas.nettstraeter@openlogisticsfoundation.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, April 17, 2022 5:15:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open
Logistics License</span> <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for the useful feedback.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'll talk to the lawyers and give you
more information on the decisions and reasons for the
changes. Also regarding the connection between German and
European law.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because of Easter holidays this could
take some days.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andreas<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr width="98%" size="2" align="center">
</div>
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="color:black"> License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>>
on behalf of Eric Schultz <<a
href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">eric@wwahammy.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:12:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For Approval: Open
Logistics License</span> <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andreas,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for submitting this!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm no lawyer but I'm a little
uncomfortable with the wording for the disclaimer of
liability around which words the "and" and "or" apply
to.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example does it mean: <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. (intent and gross negligence) OR
(causing personal injury), or
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. (intent) and (gross negligence
or causing personal injury)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">While we should definitely avoid
any harm to our users, 1 seems like it's creating a
pretty high risk to developers. After all, in some
cases it's nearly impossible to avoid all possible
injuries to all persons everywhere. Depending on the
design of the software, it may be dangerous to some
subset of users while perfectly safe to other users.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">One
thought I have is that, in cases of potential
liability, I am under the impression that certain
punishments apply if someone intends to cause the
injury or exhibited gross negligence. So does it make
sense to have an "and" there?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">My thinking is it would make more
sense to rewrite the clause to mean: (intent OR gross
negligence) AND (causing personal injury). After all,
if you exhibit intent and gross negligence but don't
cause any injury, as I understand it, there would be
no civil liability because there would be no injured
party. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm based in
the US so I'm applying my very limited knowledge to
that.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:37 AM
Andreas Nettsträter <<a
href="mailto:andreas.nettstraeter@openlogisticsfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">andreas.nettstraeter@openlogisticsfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear License Review Team,<br>
<br>
I would like to propose the Open Logistics License for
an approval. <br>
<br>
You can find the plain text copy of the license in the
attachment and the requested additional information in
the following.
<br>
<br>
Rationale: <br>
This new license is intended to represent the rights
and obligations of an established license, such as
Apache v2, while respecting the differences between US
and European law. The changes were mainly done in the
paragraphs regarding warranty and liability.<br>
<br>
Distinguish: <br>
The Open Logistics License is based on Apache v2, but
has been modified to comply more with European law.
<br>
<br>
Legal review: <br>
The entire process of discussing and drafting the
license was accompanied by BHO Legal, a German law
firm specialized in IT law. Adjustments were made to
specifically adapt the rules on the patent license,
warranty, and liability to European law. The
adjustments are intended to strengthen the acceptance
of the license by European companies and minimize
(perhaps only perceived) risks. The license was
subsequently reviewed and approved by several in-house
lawyers of larger European companies. Further details
and justifications for the individual changes can be
provided on request.<br>
<br>
Proliferation category:<br>
The decision on one specific category is quite hard.
The license is compatible with Apache2, but was
adapted to some specific European rules. The license
will be used by a larger group of companies in the
frame of open source development for logistics and
supply chain management, but is, of course, not
limited to this purpose. Therefore, the license can be
seen as a special purpose license.<br>
<br>
I'm happy to deliver more information, if needed. <br>
<br>
Regards from Germany<br>
Andreas<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andreas Nettsträter<br>
Open Logistics Foundation<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<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="https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fopensource.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7C1d60d6063c4e413eb46608da375a5b52%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637883158467177587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=28dz6y1EvIXpWfKev3RsJBpKrtf586Pg%2FseSXEGCcTI%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7C1d60d6063c4e413eb46608da375a5b52%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637883158467177587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=OCbys%2FxgB9JjI3DHZcVWlSUgWTFTaEiSQdbUZfFWxko%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<br>
-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric Schultz,
Developer and FOSS Advocate<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwwahammy.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7C1d60d6063c4e413eb46608da375a5b52%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637883158467177587%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=SuihDUB8XdU5JT7W2%2Bk9pVtxCXdIleYC2Muu%2B5lkZFs%3D&reserved=0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wwahammy.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">eric@wwahammy.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">@wwahammy<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pronouns: He/his/him<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></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>