<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>