[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)

VM (Vicky) Brasseur osi-lists at vmbrasseur.com
Mon Dec 28 01:11:20 UTC 2020

After following this fairly active thread, it's obvious many of the list 
members—including some very well-respected lawyers specialising in FOSS 
matters—object to the wording of the license. This is, of course, aside 
from any other considerations for license acceptance.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the discussions about the wording 
of the license are overshadowing or otherwise obscuring any other 
considerations for acceptance.

Thus far, Andrew, you have pushed back on every objection to the 
wording. This is a tactical mistake, as the wording is relatively easy 
to alter and changing it will eliminate that potential blocker to the 
license being accepted.

I recommend that you reconsider pushing back on objections to the 
wording and instead embrace these suggestions, retract the license for 
now, review and revamp the wording to address the concerns (ideally in 
collaboration with legal counsel experienced in such things), and then 
resubmit it for consideration.


Andrew Nassief wrote on 25/12/20 16:50:
> Hi, I would like to submit my license for approval. The LICENSE.md file 
> can be seen on GitHub 
> <https://github.com/StarkDrones/OIN/blob/main/LICENSE.md> with its 
> available markdown. For sake of simplicity, here is the raw text of the 
> license:
>     *Released under the Open Innovation License*
> Copyright © // Insert information of license holder
> /Version 1, 10th November 2020/
> /Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation/
> /Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal/
> This project is licensed under the /Open Innovation License/. This means 
> any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation containing 
> this license within it can be copied, modified, redistributed, 
> published, or even used for commercial purposes within the context of 
> this license.
>           Any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation
>           containing this license is understood to be fully "AS IS", no
>           claims are made in regards to safety, security, warranty,
>           usability, or other form of merchantability and
>           market-readiness. In no events are copyright holders, authors,
>           or publishers are to be held liable for any claims, damage or
>           results from usage of what have been licensed under this license.
> The context of this license includes: Keeping this original license text 
> verbatim and permissive notice, as well as the copyright notice included 
> in any redistribution of said project. Project is defined as what is 
> using this license. For purposes of context, the copyright notice above 
> version and year is meant to be modified for whomsoever publishes or 
> releases "any code, file, diagrams, data format, or other innovation", 
> so that they can include their information. After modifying, the comment 
> saying "// Insert information of license holder" which starts with // 
> can be removed. This current paragraph however, will remain in-tact.
> Anybody who releases software under the "Open Innovation License" agrees 
> to at goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of 
> humanity not meant with the intention to harm a human being. They agree 
> to a prima facie moral duty through consequential deontology to 
> understand that technology should be within the concept of moral good or 
> outcomes that are morally right and/or ethical. They agree at goodwill 
> to promote the advancement of humanity and civilization as a whole. They 
> agree to a sense of adventurement, edification, and the expansion of the 
> human mind.
> Said agreement which is within the last paragraph prior to this sentence 
> is meant to be taken as a general consensus, but not legally 
> enforceable. Again for context, the last paragraph which starts with 
> "Anybody" and ends with "human mind" minus quotations, is outside of the 
> boundaries of being legally enforceable and within the duties of 
> oneselve's actions. The rest of the license which includes the copyright 
> notice and its context is within a legally enforceable context. For 
> secondary context, the rest of the license refers to anything outside of 
> that said paragraph.
> ____
> /Rationale:/
> I wanted to release this license for a variety of different reasons. 
> Infact, I made many posts in regards to why this license is unique and 
> valuable, and found many developers willing to adapt this license 
> through small innovation challenges. The license was made on the basis 
> of promoting a mission statement on ethical technology within the 
> license as well as not being specific to only software i.e. files, 
> diagrams, data format or any other innovation.
> We also wanted to make sure that the license is adaptable. Many open 
> source licenses require you to put tons of header files for compliance. 
> We wanted to make a license that just requires you to contain the 
> license file in your directory. While many other open source licenses 
> also do that or follow in similar footsteps, we weren't able to find one 
> that met all these unique qualities.
> Currently, a big inspiration for this license was the idea of promoting 
> free and open software as well as a mission statement on ethical 
> technologies. We found that many of the big tech companies that are 
> hailed as heroes of open source or doing open source initiatives, built 
> technologies that are harmful to human activity. A technically 
> non-legally enforceable mission statement within an enforceable open 
> source license was the way to go. We also made sure to go out of our way 
> to promote the ideals of open source and free and redistributive software.
> /Distinguish:/
> I looked at a variety of different open source licenses. The standard 
> being MIT, then BSD+Patent, ZLib, CDDL, CPAL, CPL, CAL, BSL, and the AFL 
> license. I feel like MIT, ZLIB, and the Boost licenses focus on 
> redistribution and code. Those are the standards. The open patent 
> licenses and other licenses focus on derived original work. However, 
> none of them tried going to the same extent I wanted in terms of being 
> specific in regards to data formats or general consensus and mission. I 
> believe this is an important thing to take into account.
> /Legal review:/
> Currently I have submitted this to SPDX as well for review through their 
> GitHub/Website. However, the review time to get approval and receive 
> SPDX identifiers can be many months. I submitted in November and decided 
> to submit to OSI while I wait. As for reviewing the context of language 
> myself and actual legal review, I have thought out reviews through my 
> own legal council and self judgement as a researcher familiar with these 
> types of languages.
> /Proliferation category:/
> I don't necessarily need to be in a Proliferation category as of now, as 
> many of the licenses on your site are not in a category. However, I 
> would eventually want to get into the /Licenses that are popular and 
> widely used or with strong communities /category./
> /
> //
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

More information about the License-review mailing list