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

Andrew Nassief kamalandrew55 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 22:57:20 UTC 2020


Hi, I decided to change some of the language slightly:
https://github.com/StarkDrones/OPNL/blob/main/Version%202/LICENSE.md

The *Stark Drones Corporation* believes at goodwill, to buildin building or
releasereleasing 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 deontologypersonal moral
obligation 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 promotebelieve in promoting the advancement of humanity and
civilization as a whole. We agree tobelieve in a sense of adventurement,
edification, and the expansion of the human mind.

Anyways for what it's worth, outside of mentioning data formats and
hardware, I also wanted an open source license that mentions my specific
preamble or mission statement. There is nothing wrong with that as long as
it doesn't go against the definition of OSD.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:52 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Andrew Nassief <kamalandrew55 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I have made a version 2.0 of my license on GitHub:
> > https://github.com/StarkDrones/OPNL/tree/main/Version%202
>
> Disclaimer: I did not look at the previous version closely and did not
> follow the list discussion closely. It's possible I may be repeating
> points made about the previous version.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm going to be somewhat charitable here and say that this seems like
> it's probably intended to be a highly and uninterestingly permissive
> FOSS license and it just happens to be written in a highly odd and
> idiosyncratic style. It is notable mainly for using some (to me, quite
> annoyingly) oddball phrasing (your use of "goodwill" is as far as I
> can tell unidiomatic; you use "context of this license" to mean
> something like the operative terms of the license; I am pretty sure
> "consequential deontology" has no obvious meaning but I am also not
> getting the sense that you are using it for comical effect; and
> perhaps most unforgivingly from my perspective, you use "innovation"
> to mean something like "work of authorship").
>
> Unlike (I think) most people in this space nowadays I celebrate
> without mockery the eccentric tradition of FOSS license drafting, but
> that's mostly for licenses that grew out of the developer community in
> an earlier time, licenses which might be deserving of legacy approval
> by the OSI under its current rules. I am the furthest thing from an
> arch-license-antiproliferationist but I don't see what this license
> provides *as a license* for contemporary use that we don't already
> have with, say, the MIT license. You address this in your rationale:
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't find that convincing, again even though I am not an
> arch-anti-proliferationist and have recommended approval of a number
> of permissive licenses in the past. You mention data formats, true,
> but that may actually raise questions as to what you mean (what sort
> of license rights in data formats are you granting permission to copy,
> etc.). I don't know what you mean by "general consensus" here and I
> suppose "mission" refers to the paragraph of preamble language?
>
> Richard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
http://andsocialrew.wall.fm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201228/535b9cfe/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list