[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 8

Alex Williams implementnap at gmail.com
Fri Oct 16 18:28:00 UTC 2020 

Dear Mccoy,
I almost didn't see your message.  Fortunately, the message archives made
the message chain a little more clear.

In reference to your comment about "source code", he license mentions
"included work", which is meant to mean any copyrightable work including
source code.  Should I add a clarifying phrase such as work includes all
copyrightable work including (but not limited to) software, etc?

I ran this by various lawyers, but only one of them gave constructive
feedback beyond this license is a "bad idea" or it's "pointless".  Their
feedback helped me clean it up a bit.  What type of sign-off should I aim
for from legal assistance to say this license is ready for OSI review?

Here are some of the relevant public threads I've discussed this license so
far:
https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/j88b7j/antiip_license/
https://www.reddit.com/r/copyrightlaw/comments/j88d24/antiip_license/

-Alex

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:27 AM <
license-review-request at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
>         license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7 (Alex Williams)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:26:27 -0500
> From: Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+ujgfM1ezJhS_95FcFW4tw5FBPyWriBHzba1vx_RLSFf_Fdpg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Kevin,
> I wasn't clear with my wording.  I believe the license is complete subject
> to feedback I receive about how to improve its wording or to address any
> issues that it might have.
> I'm happy to move this to license discussion if you or any of the reviewers
> believe that is appropriate.  Should I do that now, or should I wait for
> further questioning on this thread to get a better assessment of which list
> the license is best in its current state?
>
> I also should state that I'm not a lawyer.  The intention with this
> modification would be that if fraud is committed the license would stay
> fully intact... but the owner's reserve the right to sue for IP
> infringement for the limited area of areas associated with the fraud.
>
> For example, identity theft defrauds a bank rather than the owner of the
> identity.  Some people argue identity is a form of IP.  So, in this case
> the "No fraud" clause would clarify that the owners are not waiving their
> right to recourse in damages caused by identity theft.
>
> Would this intention be permissible within OSIs definition of open source?
> If so, do you believe I should add clarifying language such as:
> Fraudulent use does not terminate your license.  However, no legal remedies
> for IP infringement are waived for fraudulent use.
>
> -Alex
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM <
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> > Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> >         license-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: Anti-IP License (McCoy Smith)
> >    2. Re: license review request (Simon Phipps)
> >    3. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Alex Williams)
> >    4. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Kevin P. Fleming)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:04:13 -0700
> > From: "McCoy Smith" <mccoy at lexpan.law>
> > To: "'License submissions for OSI review'"
> >         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License
> > Message-ID: <064601d6a3c5$3a973080$afc59180$@lexpan.law>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > This is an interesting concept, but poorly executed. Kevin points out one
> > problem. Another is that it doesn't anywhere discuss source code (which
> > would seem to violate OSD 2).
> > I'd say this is one that really needs a lawyer's involvement, to ensure
> its
> > terms meet the goals of the author and also satisfy the OSD.
> > FWIW, I'm not sure how this would be found "unconscionable" at least
> under
> > USA law; it appears to be something like an attempt to do a copyleft
> public
> > domain dedication, which AFAIK, isn't unconscionable.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> > > Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming
> > > Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 6:29 AM
> > > To: License submissions for OSI review
> > <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:18 AM Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No Fraud
> > > >
> > > > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud. If
> you
> > are
> > > found guilty of committing fraud using any of the Licensable IP or a
> > Restricted
> > > work in a court of law, then your license ends immediately.
> > >
> > > This is a restriction on use, and thus generally considered to be
> > incompatible
> > > with the OSD. If this was to have any chance at approval at all, the
> > license
> > > termination would need to apply to only the limited usage of the
> covered
> > > works which were involved in the fraudulent activity. If the licensee
> > also
> > uses
> > > the covered works in other activities, which have not been determined
> to
> > be
> > > fraudulent, then those licenses would have to stay in force. My opinion
> > of
> > > course, IANAL, yadda yadda.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:08:09 +0100
> > From: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
> > To: mccoy at lexpan.law,  License submissions for OSI review
> >         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] license review request
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54+s7yiJ2o55cwXW+QCjQKPyOFhg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > I agree. This is a submission that would have been better caught in
> > moderation and rejected with an explanation of the misunderstanding.
> >
> > S.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:53 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> >
> > > This appears to be nothing more than 2-clause BSD:
> > > https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It?s not clear why you are looking for approval for an already-approved
> > > license.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Also, you didn?t seem to provide the information required for a
> license
> > > submission: https://opensource.org/approval, in particular, whether
> this
> > > received legal review and distinguishing it from OSI approved licenses,
> > > particularly BSD 2-clause]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> *On
> > > Behalf Of *Seung-Eon Roh
> > > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2020 1:16 PM
> > > *To:* license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > > *Subject:* [License-review] license review request
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I?m writing to request an approval of open source license for a matlab
> > > code for neuroscience data analysis.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Submission type*: Approval
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *License name*: Calcium signal processing for neuroscience
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *License*:
> > >
> > > Copyright (c) 2020, Seung-Eon Roh
> > >
> > > All rights reserved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> > met:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > >
> > >       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > >
> > >     * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > >
> > >       notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> > >
> > >       the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> > > distribution
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
> > > IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
> TO,
> > > THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> > > PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
> > > CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> > > EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
> > > PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
> > PROFITS;
> > > OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF
> LIABILITY,
> > > WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR
> > > OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
> > > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *The link to public link for the code*:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/NeuRoh1/Calcium_signal_processing
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I?m enclosing a Matlab code which will be licensed for.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > This licensing is intended to support the supplement documentation of
> > > matlab code for an article publication in eLife Journal. Please let me
> > know
> > > if the request is in a good shape.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Seung-Eon Roh
> > >
> > > Post-doc researcher
> > >
> > > Department of Neuroscience
> > >
> > > Johns Hopkins University
> > >
> > > Baltimore, MD
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/603e21d9/attachment-0001.html
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:47:35 -0500
> > From: Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> > To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6
> > Message-ID:
> >         <CA+ujgfOhjZQPEcuvsO1sbfCHzk68ZhYZt9R=
> > GwrtdMRmWRv2Sw at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Dear Kevin:
> > I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I don't think we need
> > license termination for that section. What if the section merely read:
> > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud
> >
> > Would that change address your concern regarding "No Discrimination
> against
> > fields of endeavor"?
> >
> > Also, thank you for taking the time to review the license. If we can
> > perfect it and get it approved, I plan to use it in my company and
> > encourage others to do so as well. Overall, I think the license has
> reached
> > a stable point in terms of intent. However, I suspect there are sections
> > where the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with any
> > constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one comment, I
> > received recently here is one question I have: Here are my current
> > questions:
> > Is there any substantial difference between:
> >   a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> > will be able to license.
> >   b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can or
> > will be able to license that would otherwise infringe that owner's IP
> > rights.
> >
> > If so, which definition is better?
> >
> > -Alex
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/60aa7659/attachment-0001.html
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:59:23 -0400
> > From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kevin+osi at km6g.us>
> > To: License submissions for OSI review
> >         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6
> > Message-ID:
> >         <CAE+UdorG=
> > FKOCFbwEQq+ADJKoY47sFfSqRQu06Tr_-AJ-kMPcQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > If you're still drafting the license, this should be moved to
> > license-discuss, not on license-review. Submission for approval should
> > be for a license that you consider to be complete, and that you revise
> > based on feedback during the review process.
> >
> > Regarding the 'field of endeavor' restriction, I'm not a lawyer, but I
> > don't see how your suggested change would make any difference. If you
> > tell the licensee that the covered works cannot be used to commit
> > fraud, then that implies that the license is
> > vacated/nullified/terminated in that situation.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:48 AM Alex Williams <implementnap at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Kevin:
> > > I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I don't think we
> need
> > license termination for that section. What if the section merely read:
> > > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud
> > >
> > > Would that change address your concern regarding "No Discrimination
> > against fields of endeavor"?
> > >
> > > Also, thank you for taking the time to review the license. If we can
> > perfect it and get it approved, I plan to use it in my company and
> > encourage others to do so as well. Overall, I think the license has
> reached
> > a stable point in terms of intent. However, I suspect there are sections
> > where the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with any
> > constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one comment, I
> > received recently here is one question I have: Here are my current
> > questions:
> > > Is there any substantial difference between:
> > >   a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can
> or
> > will be able to license.
> > >   b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included work can
> or
> > will be able to license that would otherwise infringe that owner's IP
> > rights.
> > >
> > > If so, which definition is better?
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7
> > *********************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/32717750/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 8
> *********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/1c4d04ea/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list