<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi Andreas,<br>
<br>
Our preference would be to withdraw the license and then resubmit it
after it has been amended. The reason for this is that it gets very
confusing to review a license that keeps changing, since you're not
sure whether you're looking at the correct version or not.<br>
<br>
I would also encourage use of the license-discuss list (signup on <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://opensource.org/lists">this</a>
page) to iterate on the license before formally submitting it.
That's a place intended for this kind of work, the back-and-forth in
getting the wording as perfect as possible. Then, once the language
is finalized, submit it again to the license-review list for
approval.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela Chestek<br>
Chair, License Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/6/2022 4:18 AM, Andreas
Nettsträter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:FRYP281MB0237E5F830FEDC7A10DEF07C9B809@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;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 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;}pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}span.HTMLVorformatiertZchn
{mso-style-name:"HTML Vorformatiert Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Vorformatiert";
font-family:Consolas;}.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"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Hi
Pam,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">thanks for the detailed commenting. This helps
a lot.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">The license exists only in English, so we are
talking about the correct document. We’ve realized that we
should check again the grammar and words, especially with
regards to formal terms and different meaning in US and
Europe.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">In general, we don’t see bigger problems or
conflicts with most of your points. We already discussed
possible changes and adoptions addressing your comments.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">What would be the best way to go on and also to
make it easier for you to follow the changes? Should we
update the complete license text and resubmit it or should
we come up with inline answers to your e-mail?<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">We need to have some discussions with our
partners regarding the main blocker (patents opt-out). I
fully understand your considerations and it was also not my
preferred option.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Andreas<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>
<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>Pamela Chestek<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 5. Juli 2022 00:32<br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" 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">(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 ...
<b><i>as well as the application and user documentation</i></b>."
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>
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
<b><i>as well as this License in itself</i></b> [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<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 href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a
href="https://deu01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chesteklegal.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Candreas.nettstraeter%40openlogisticsfoundation.org%7Cb2351ae257394d74e19208da5e0d216d%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637925707753675801%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yH87s1esavahZ1c0%2FFVF%2BwbZHgRBYeGLx4nijyJIDSw%3D&reserved=0"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/30/2022 5:49 AM, Andreas Nettsträter wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">Andreas</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></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</span></u><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">2. Comments No. 1 and No. 2 by McCoy Smith</span></u><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">3. Comment No. 3 by McCoy Smith:
</span></u><o:p></o:p></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. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span
lang="EN-GB">4. Comment No. 4 by McCoy Smith:
</span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span
lang="EN-GB">We see three issues here.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></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
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<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
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<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, </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="color:#212121">Andreas</span><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="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-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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%7Cb2351ae257394d74e19208da5e0d216d%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637925707753675801%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZWdkaMTxct0NFgFiFoOjZFkTFQkrjMNMz%2Br3aGW5fmI%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%7Cb2351ae257394d74e19208da5e0d216d%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637925707753832092%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z%2FW4AWCrnhJBeanTI8EADbWYWr1byFhUC3lr%2Fp7lpRg%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%7Cb2351ae257394d74e19208da5e0d216d%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637925707753832092%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hB00T6wvukUO%2F8ZilvtjA9ATA4yAyDesvvFGvkTX6pM%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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<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 opensource.org email address.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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%7Cb2351ae257394d74e19208da5e0d216d%7Cb346d634acfb42c7bd44f1557ee89b1b%7C1%7C0%7C637925707753832092%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z%2FW4AWCrnhJBeanTI8EADbWYWr1byFhUC3lr%2Fp7lpRg%3D&reserved=0" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</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>