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

Fri Apr 12 17:04:04 UTC 2013

Luis Villa wrote:

> 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?

This license-review@ list still serves a useful purpose, doesn’t it, even if
we’re not always objective? We discuss such “duplicativeness” issues (for
free) every time someone takes the trouble to submit a license. If, after
listening to us argue, OSI accepts the new license, an irrelevant new
license won’t rock the world of software regardless of approval. OTOH, if
OSI rejects the license, its author can perhaps appeal to some religious
authority or just use the license anyway. It is this OSI review itself that
often proves most valuable.

In either event, OSI is still relevant to license reviews. If this OSI list
is not well-positioned to be proxies for a process that is measured by open
source license adoption rather than OSI license approval, then nobody is.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/>
www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

Linkedin profile:  <http://linkd.in/XXpHyu> http://linkd.in/XXpHyu 

From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis at lu.is] 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:16 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen; License Review
Subject: Re: [License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re:
Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]

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>
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/c10f7445/attachment.html>