<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi Pam,</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
We have a variety of internal rules about licenses and their assessment process, and OSI-approved licenses go through a streamlined process. In this particular case, the license is mainly used in older dependencies and would be straightforward to handle internally
as a one-off. But, I figured I'd ask about approval in case it helps other companies with similar "How does OSI feel about it" policies.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Thanks,</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Brian</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: black;">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">--</span></div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: black;">
<b>Brian Warner</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: black;">
Director, Fidelity Investments OSPO</div>
<div style="text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; color: black;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><a href="mailto:brian.warner2@fmr.com" id="OWA4c78a08b-28ec-76e7-e165-0857deeb2688" class="OWAAutoLink" title="mailto:brian.warner2@fmr.com">brian.warner2@fmr.com</a></span><span style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">+1 724-301-6171</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%;">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:</b> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> on behalf of Pamela Chestek <pamela.chestek@opensource.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 25, 2024 2:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> license-review@lists.opensource.org <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [External] Re: [License-review] CDDL 1.1</span>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="font-size: 11pt;">NOTICE: This email is from an external sender - do not click on links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.<br>
<br>
<br>
Brian,<br>
<br>
Why do you ask? Do you have a current need for the license to be approved?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chair, License Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
<br>
On 7/18/2024 1:51 PM, Warner, Brian (TS3K) via License-review wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I searched the list archives and didn't see a submission for CDDL 1.1 (my apologies if I missed it). I know it's been around for quite a while, but if it wasn't submitted in the past would it make sense to add it?<br>
><br>
> I diffed the text in case it helps. The differences between 1.0 and 1.1 appear to be:<br>
><br>
> 1. Oracle is the initial license steward, not Sun<br>
> 2. Section 6.3 is new: "If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that the Participant Software directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation
of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license."<br>
> 3. Section 7 is changed to remove the words "LOST PROFITS"<br>
> 4. A choice of venue was added: "NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THE COMMON DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION LICENSE (CDDL)<br>
> The code released under the CDDL shall be governed by the laws of the State of California (excluding conflict-of-law provisions). Any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of
California and the state courts of the State of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California."<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Brian<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 opensource.org email address.<br>
><br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> License-review@lists.opensource.org<br>
> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" id="OWAfb7487f4-db8b-3fab-b6a3-abb62d29d8d9" class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="NotApplicable">
https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C02%7Cbrian.warner2%40fmr.com%7Ce680c45bbb75439de0d308dcac70a6a1%7C7521acbca68c41e5a9751cf83066dd19%7C0%7C0%7C638574847044053777%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Tm5CenP7CXwiNukLv%2FsDozYE%2BRQmytlmxe1MlCPakVU%3D&reserved=0</a><br>
--<br>
<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 opensource.org email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
License-review@lists.opensource.org<br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" id="OWA17fa101b-6631-8eb6-c5e0-023cb0639130" class="OWAAutoLink" data-auth="NotApplicable">https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org&data=05%7C02%7Cbrian.warner2%40fmr.com%7Ce680c45bbb75439de0d308dcac70a6a1%7C7521acbca68c41e5a9751cf83066dd19%7C0%7C0%7C638574847044061709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Vhg7P1Xy9zy%2FLPaZ%2B46lRDTqqh%2BULZJ9WFwtuFxIVeg%3D&reserved=0</a></div>
</body>
</html>