[License-review] Approval: Open Innovation License v2.0

Andrew Nassief kamalandrew55 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 22:25:15 UTC 2020

My point is the problem was in regards to the mission statement being
embedded in the license, hence why I made a preamble. Also in the preamble,
my entity is specifically stating its mission statement and agreeing to it.
Isn't that an improvement from asking one to directly agree. By technical
observations, does this technically abide with not having a restriction?
There is no restriction on starting your missions statements or ethical
beliefs within a license agreement as long as it isn't restricting others

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:22 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> Licenses and license language are applied by courts.
> You’re submitting a license, not an ethical manifesto, for approval.
> *From:* Andrew Nassief <kamalandrew55 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2020 2:19 PM
> *To:* mccoy at lexpan.law; License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Approval: Open Innovation License v2.0
> Deontology is a branch of ethics, and moralism isn't applied by courts.
> Also this specifically states the agreement by an entity not asking you to
> agree. Doesn't that solve the problem?
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 5:14 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> “consequential deontology” is likely to be construed as oxymoronic:
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
> Given that deontology would likely be construed by a court (as according
> to its dictionary definition) as imposing a moral duty, or obligation, this
> license still would likely be considered to include a legally-binding
> restriction on the license itself, thus violating the OSD.
> There really doesn’t seem to be much change here from version 1 other than
> rearrangement, so many of the same problems (other than the use of the
> acronym “OIN” in version 1) would seem to remain.
> You really need to get someone with some level of experience in clear
> license or contract drafting to work on this, as it very likely is going to
> get rid of a lot of the grammatical and syntactic problems this license, in
> both versions, has, as well as taking out terminology like “consequential
> deontology” and “at goodwill” which are making this license unclear.
> *From:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Nassief
> *Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2020 2:00 PM
> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject:* [License-review] Approval: Open Innovation License v2.0
> Hello, I have made a version 2.0 of my license on GitHub:
> https://github.com/StarkDrones/OPNL/tree/main/Version%202
> The text is as follows:
> The Open Innovation License
> *Version 2, 28th December 2020*
> *Copyright © 2020 Stark Drones Corporation*
> *Copyright © 2020 Andrew Magdy Kamal*
> Preamble
> The *Stark Drones Corporation* believes at goodwill, to build or release
> technology for the betterment of humanity. Technology should not be meant
> with the intention of harming a human being. We believe in 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. We agree at goodwill to promote the advancement of
> humanity and civilization as a whole. We agree to a sense of adventurement,
> edification, and the expansion of the human mind.
> *Released under the Open Innovation License*
> *Copyright © (YEAR) (Copyright Holder)*
> 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 non and/or 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
> and file verbatim, 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 after the preamble
> 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.
> ____
> *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.
> **I want to emphasize that after hearing the core concerns regarding OPNL
> (Version #1), I have decided to create the preamble variation as suggested.
> I still believe in the full merits of the first version, but wanted to
> simplify both the license and OSI approval process.*
> *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

Andrew Magdy Kamal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201228/c955062a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screenshot_2020-12-28 StarkDrones OPNL.png
Type: image/png
Size: 53965 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201228/c955062a/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the License-review mailing list