[License-discuss] Request Discussion Pre-Reviews For New Licenses (chewkeanho-rlos, chewkeanho-cos, chewkeanho-gpos)

Sat Oct 5 13:51:01 UTC 2024

I have not read these licenses in detail because the are extremely long, 
approximately 4500 words, appear from the definitions alone to have way 
more detail than a typical open source license, and are not 
understandable, e.g., this paragraph:

> Should the Covenant is under version controlled; except when a valid 
> and specific
> version is explicitly reproduced either through the locally available 
> Covenant Notice file
> or declared and reproduced by the Product itself in which that version 
> shall be enforced;
> the latest and greatest version of the entire Covenant of its 
> understanding, proposals,
> representations, and warranties relating to the subject matter shall, 
> with prejudice,
> prevail, be enforced, and superseding all previous versions.
"Should ... is under ... controlled" is not grammatically correct and 
therefore the meaning isn't clear. A term like "latest and greatest" 
cannot be construed - what if the latest version isn't also the 
"greatest" version, and "greatest" on what vector? It is unnecessarily 
verbose - "understanding, proposals, representations, and warranties," 
"prevail, be enforced, and superseding."

That is just the first operative paragraph and a brief scan shows that 
the clarity does not improve from there.

The licenses include "services," but open source licenses are for 
software, not for services. There also appear to be other areas covered 
that are inappropriate for a software-only license, such as personal 
information.

Your license does not grant rights to trade secrets; this would likely 
be considered not compliant with the OSD. It also doesn't make sense for 
an open source license - what possible trade secret can there be in 
published code?

Writing licenses, and particularly open source licenses, is a highly 
specialized skill. In my opinion, these licenses would not be approved 
in their present form and would also require a great deal of work by a 
skilled open source lawyer before approaching anything that might be 
acceptable. I don't think it would be worthwhile even to try to edit 
them, it would be simpler to start from scratch.

Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal capacity)
Chestek Legal
300 Fayetteville St.
Unit 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal
www.chesteklegal.com

On 9/30/2024 2:58 AM, (Holloway) Chew, Kean Ho via License-discuss wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Wish you a lovely day. Complying to 
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process process, I wish to 
> invite everyone here to discuss and pre-review my newly drafted 
> open-source licenses not just for software but also general 
> intellectual properties usage before submitting to license-review 
> mailing list.
>
> The main goal is to create a new set of license frameworks which does 
> not require issuing multiple outbound licenses (e.g. Apache 2.0 for 
> software, CC-BY-ND for images, CC-BY-SA for video, ...) for a single 
> project repository and picked up the latest updates in the market 
> implementations.
>
> What was mainly updated:
>
>  1. Changed Software to Product so that the license can be expanded to
>     non-software product licensing usage (e.g. graphics, video,
>     manufacturing design, audio, etc) without needing to spin multiple
>     outbound licenses; AND
>  2. Added license assignment, ratification, and tenure section to
>     specify when and how is the license applied; AND
>  3. Added version controlled clauses for which version shall be in
>     effect by default; AND
>  4. Added artificial intelligence training dataset usage clauses; AND
>  5. Added Sensitive Data warranty and liability coverage; AND
>  6. Added global vendors (e.g. datacenter) Sensitive Data limitation
>     of liability; AND
>  7. Added force manjure limitation of liability; AND
>  8. Added global vendors (e.g. datacenter) Sensitive Data limitation
>     of liability; AND
>  9. Added judiciary minimal damage values limitation of liability; AND
> 10. Expanded grant clauses into Creative Commons' rights categories;
> 11. AND Added geographical indicator coverage; AND
> 12. Added protected geographical indicator coverage; AND
> 13. Added protected designation indicator coverage; AND
> 14. Added industrial design use coverage; AND
> 15. Added integrated circuit layout design use coverage; AND
> 16. Added trade secret use coverage.
>
> ----
>
> There are 4 sets of licenses (3 are open-source):
>
> (1) chewkeanho-rlos
> A libre-like license similar to BSD3-Clear but reserves registered IPs 
> (patent, etc) back to the owner.
>
> Primary license source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13777226
> Backup license source: https://github.com/ChewKeanHo/license-rlos
>
>
> (2) chewkeanho-cos
> An Apache 2.0-like license where registered IPs are granting use 
> licenses by default.
>
> Primary license source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13788522
> Backup license source: https://github.com/ChewKeanHo/license-cos
>
>
> (3) chewkeanho-gpos
> A GPLv2-like general public license. Functions like a 
> backhole open-source that makes everything general public and forcing 
> upstream. Copyleft boundaries designations (where its effects shall 
> stop) are included and warning notice is on the cover page in case of 
> excited junior executives.
>
> Primary license source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13825030
> Backup license source: https://github.com/ChewKeanHo/license-gpos
>
>
> (4) chewkeanho-proprietary
> A fallback, safety first, designed specifically for junior executives 
> in case of mishaps. The goal is that, when a project is generated, 
> this shall be the default license (where everything is locked up). 
> Just in case a junior accidentally "open" the project, the proprietary 
> license effect is still there where any senior / legal executive can 
> fire-fight the situation. The project can be re-licensed into the 
> other open-source licenses once the embargo is cleared by the business 
> unit.
>
> IMPORTANT: This is not an open-source license but is listed here for 
> reference as the other licenses are inter-relate with each other.
>
> Primary license source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13767361
> Backup license source: https://github.com/ChewKeanHo/license-proprietary
>
> ----
>
> Proposed SPDX identifier:
> Recommended: **chewkeanho-Xos** (X is the type like c, gp, rl) since 
> there is a version control clause so the stewards can update 
> the primary license without backfiring the older versions.
> If version locked is required: **chewkeanho-Xos-5-and-above** (where 
> version 5 is reserved and shall includes the feedback from OSI)
>
> Supported languages: English
>
> Available file formats: (1) PDF - for legal folks; AND (2) RTF - for 
> Microsoft MSI packager; (3) TXT - for Unix packager (e.g. debian package)
>
> Source redundancies: (1) Zenodo - in the EU that issued the common 
> DOI; AND (2) GitHub, in the US.
>
> ----
>
> Feedbacks & amendments are welcome. Version 4 is reserved for OSI 
> feedback and improvement for externals.
>
> Site-note: if possible, please let me issue PDF for each iteration. 
> the TXT requires manual formatting (to make it human readable 
> friendly) which is very time consuming. If possible, I would like the 
> TXT formatting to be done only after finalization.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
>
> Regards,
> (Holloway) Chew, Kean Ho
> /Justus Dominus/
> 202403160286 (003613489-T)
> W:https://www.hollowaykeanho.com
> E:me at hollowaykeanho.com | hollowaykeanho at gmail.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender 
> immediately and delete all copies. The sender shall not be held liable 
> for any damages, losses, or expenses of any kind arising from the use 
> of or reliance on the contents of this email herein. If the contents 
> of this email are digitally and cryptographically signed by a GNU 
> Privacy Guard (GnuPG) key, please seek out the public key with the 
> sender email available at: _https://www.hollowaykeanho.com/pubkey.gpg_
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241005/5c1cc060/attachment-0001.htm>