[License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re: Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]

Fri Apr 12 15:15:42 UTC 2013

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote:****
>
> > If the license could be interesting for developers in Europe or if the
> license steward could propose it for software distribution trough the
> European Commissions' Joinup.eu platform (this may probably be applicable
> to most cases), there is currently one way for obtaining free legal suport:
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> It is great that people can get free legal advice in Europe to develop new
> open source licenses.
>
I also agree with Richard Fontana that we don’t want to treat open source
> licensing like a game that only the rich and their lawyers can play.
>
There are also other resources available: SFLC and ifross come to mind. But
yes, the general concern is a real concern. Of course, the alternative
appears to be badly drafted licenses. I'm not sure how to weight them.

>  At this stage of our open source paradigm development, however, how many
> new wrinkles on license provisions are likely to matter?  I hope that your
> group will only provide legal assistance (free or fee-based) to projects
> that can identify a clear rationale for a new license rather than simply a
> new way to say the same old things.
>
> ** **
>
> In my view, the wrinkles we might actually like in new licenses are those
> that solve patent problems, or apply in new ways to cloud-based or embedded
> or mobile software. We don’t need any more Apache or BSD licenses, do we,
> no matter how eloquently phrased? ****
>
> ** **
>
> I personally have been frustrated by writing licenses that don’t actually
> rock the world of software; how much more such frustration do license
> drafters and license reviewers need? This gets back to our old argument
> about license proliferation. Too many amateurs and their free lawyers
> writing new licenses will only exacerbate that problem.****
>
> ** **
>
> And so, to quote Patrice-Emmanuel once again, this is the most important
> factor:****
>
> > - explanations on your licensing project, why you submit it, why no
> existing licenses does not fit...
>
This is *extremely* important. And something the proliferation report
called out in 2006 ;) In particular, it specifically mentioned new criteria
for approval:[1]

   1. The license must not be duplicative
   2. The license must be clearly written, simple, and understandable

These requirements were never formalized, but they've clearly remained
relevant: I kicked off this thread by (implicitly) referencing #2; Larry
and Patrice-Emmanuel are (implicitly) referencing #1.

As with my opening comments about #2, I don't think OSI is well-positioned
to objectively evaluate #1 - one person's duplicative is another person's
"this is clearly different in important ways!" So, again, I ask: are there
proxies we could use for duplicativeness?

Luis

[1] A third proposed criteria, "[t]he license must be reusable", has not
been a source of problems, as far as I know, since the report was launched.

> ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> /Larry****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz [mailto:pe.schmitz at googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 7:02 AM
> *To:* license-review at opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] License drafting quality and process [was
> Re: Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]****
>
> ** **
>
> Richard Fontana dixit:****
>
>
> > ... access to good legal advice will be unrealistic to many developers,
> ...****
>
> ** **
>
> If the license could be interesting for developers in Europe or if the
> license steward could propose it for software distribution trough the
> European Commissions' Joinup.eu platform (this may probably be applicable
> to most cases), there is currently one way for obtaining free legal suport:
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Path:****
>
> 1. Visit the Joinup Open Source Software page
> https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/all****
>
> 2. Hit the right button "Ask a legal question"****
>
> 3. Fill the form and select the category "Questions on legal issues"****
>
>    Example:****
>
> "I may propose the new license hereunder to Joinup Open Source
> developpers, do you have any legal comments on the draft and rationale
> prior submission to OSI?"****
>
> ** **
>
> This is possible now, without formal guarantee of course (depending on
> workload).****
>
> It is recommended to prepare two separate sections (to insert in the form
> or to provide on request to the Joinup team, if too long):****
>
> - the draft licence****
>
> - explanations on your licensing project, why you submit it, why no
> existing licenses does not fit...****
>
> ** **
>
> Best wishes,****
>
> P-E.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/4/8 Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>****
>
> Richard Fontana dixit:****
>
>
> >agree. Certainly 'cut and paste isn't sufficient', but access to good
> >legal advice will be unrealistic to many developers, and yet they seem***
> *
>
> I had Till Jäger from the ifrOSS have a short look-over,
> which he kindly made for free (though they normally focus
> on copyleft licences). Probably better than nothing.
>
> Might be a suggestion. If the prospective author has _some_
> resources, maybe the ifrOSS would be happy to negotiate;
> asking them probably isn’t bad.
>
> On the other hand, I don’t know which legislations they
> can operate in…
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
>   "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out
>    the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you feel so-o-o COOL."
>                                          -- Henry Nelson, March 1999****
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
> pe.schmitz at googlemail.com
> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20130412/9d5a86e3/attachment.html>