[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 14
Alex Williams
implementnap at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 18:21:30 UTC 2020
Dear Pamela,
Thank you for taking the time to ask so many thoughtful questions. I hope
I have addressed all the issues you raised in this response. If not,
please remind me of any point that I missed.
> I believe this license is very flawed because it treats all supposed
"IP" the same way
In the Restricted work definition, I see your point. Would it be better to
define it like this:
"Owner" means an owner of the included work.
“Restricted work” refers to any derivative work of any work owned by one or
more Owner that would otherwise infringe on an Owner's copyrights.
In the grant section, the license intends to grant as much of their IP as
would be enforceable. I haven't been able to find anything that
specifically restricts which rights can be granted in a license (in an
enforceable manner). However, I plan on getting legal opinion(s) on this
matter.
In the fraud section, I admit that fraud is much more likely with a
trademark than copyright. However, this license seeks to be future-proof.
So, probably either the fraud provision should be removed or retained as
applying to all the use rights granted by the license.
> There is no clearly defined group of rights that are considered "IP.
Do you believe I should add "in their respective jurisdictions" to "courts
of law that recognize intellectual property"? Would that address the
issue?
> have different policy reasons for existing and trying to treat them all
the same way is, in my view, misguided.
There is precedent for granting rights to IP beyond an original work and
derivative works in a copyright license. The GPL3 is a popular example.
Do you believe that the new definition of "Restricted work" addresses your
concern?
> Trademarks, though, are for the protection of commerce and fair
competition. This license makes no sense for trademarks (which is why FOSS
license almost never encompass trademarks)
I agree with the sentiment expressed on https://opensource.org that a major
benefit of open source license is to support community development. This
license is currently taking the position of supporting a community that
wishes to express to each other in a legally binding manner that they won't
sue each other for trademark (and more generally) IP infringement unless
there is a component of fraud.
Trademark is problematic when it's used to prevent dilution, obvious
non-fraudulent knockoffs, and when trademark bullying is used. Also,
trademarks can cause problems in open source projects when there is a
fork. There is an influential patent attorney that expands on these issues:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/02/the-trademark-horror-file/
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0
Also, licensing trademarks is starting to become more recognized:
https://openusage.org
> but I then tolerate (or license) everyone using the the word "escalator"
for that same device, then it's not a trademark anymore
In this license, we would be asking people to acquire trademarks
defensively and only exercise them when their customers have been defrauded.
> modify it so that it is itself malicious software, and distribute it with
the same name
Malicious software can be litigated without IP laws:
https://nyccriminallawyer.com/white-collar-crimes/distribution-malicious-software
If customers are defrauded, then the author could assist in seeking legal
action.
> Is "likelihood of confusion" in trademark law what you mean by "fraud"?
No. Some lawyers believe that in practice that standard is too loosely
applied.
> And how will the person relying on the license know when their use is
lawful or unlawful
Even if we leave out the fraud provision, customers can still sue if they
are defrauded. The point of the provision is to allow the authors to take
legal action in this event as well. So, as long as someone can defend
themselves against a lawsuit involving fraud, then they will not have
infringed on the trademark (IP) rights granted to them by this license.
> Why should privacy rights, which protect an individual, be treated the
same way as exclusionary rights in copyright and patent?
The Creative Commons license also grants privacy rights:
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
However, they limit it to "publicity and privacy rights pertaining to a
person's image or likeness depicted in a Work". This brings up a good
point. Maybe I should separate the neighboring/related rights grant from
the IP rights grant to narrow the grant to only involve copyrightable
works. Would that address your concern here?
I believe one motivation for CC0's inclusion of that provision is to make
it clear that people in shared photos and videos won't sue others for
distributing content under a Common's license. Also, in Jennifer Rothman's
book, https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980983, she
emphasizes how privacy rights clash with copyright. She says a leading
treatise on copyright law has fairly described copyright preemption as
having “more volatility than just about any other doctrine”. So, it's
probably worth the effort to figure out how to appropriately grant
privacy/publicity rights in a general-purpose copyright license.
> Same with fair competition, isn't the ability to ensure fair competition
beneficial to society?
It probably also makes sense to limit the scope to works as is done in
CC0. As with trademarks, the goal would be to shift from the standard of
"confusion" to "fraud". It could make sense to expand "No fraud" to "No
Fraud and No Libel". Do you think that would be helpful?
Trade secret appropriation can be handled with NDAs. Those that grant this
license would effectively signal that it will not claim any information
known (or becomes known) to the public is a Trade Secret.
> Does that mean that if I want to assign the rights in a Restricted work
to someone who is already using the license for a /different/ work?
Yes. That's correct. Or if there are multiple owners involved to assign
your ownership to them.
> And what does "publicly licensed" mean in the Copyleft section of the
license?
Yes. Clarification would be beneficial here. Would this definition of
"Publicly Licensed work" be sufficiently clear?
"This document shall be affixed to a publicly available copy of the work in
such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the issuance of
the license".
> If I own a Public Restricted work, I have to assign it away? That doesn't
make sense.
A Public Restricted work will end up in one of 4 cases:
1) It will be assigned to someone that has copyrighted a different work
under this license (and thus due to the nature of the grant of this license
that work will be publicly granted as well)
2) The person will choose to license their derivative work under the
Anti-IP license.
3) The derivative work will be publicly available and the owner will remain
anonymous. Since copyright must be enforced by the owner, the derivative
work would be indirectly granted to the public. If the anonymous owner
chose to sue for copyright infringement, then they would no longer be
anonymous and then they can be given notice of infringement on this license.
4) The owner is known and they chose to allow their license to the
derivative work to terminate. Here's an interesting question, do the
original authors automatically have licensing rights if the license to a
derivative work terminates? If not, there would need to be a provision for
that.
Ultimately, the goal is that every possible path should effectively allow
the public to use a Public Restricted work, and the paths should be
designed in such a way that rights are only granted consensually within the
scope of IP law.
> why is the assignment of Restricted works different from Public
Restricted works?
When a derivative work is private, the goal is to keep the work within the
scope of the first sale doctrine so that we can enforce the copyright.
However, private use is generally fair use and there shouldn't be any
obligations to license or assign it.
> And what does it mean to "grant everyone rights to the work under this
document"?
This would be case (2) that I mentioned for Public Restricted works. Are
you suggesting that I should replace "document" with "license" here?
> I am also skeptical it would ever be approved because I think it is a
fundamental error to try to lump all "IP" together
What do you believe would be the maximum set of rights granted in an
open-source license that:
a) Could be approved by the OSI?
or
b) Could be legally enforced in countries that follow the Berne Convention?
Do you believe (a) and (b) are the same or potentially different?
> I suggest withdrawing it from license-review while these issues are more
thoroughly considered.
Do you believe that the license-discuss list would be more appropriate for
the license at this time?
-Alex
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 10:52 PM <
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 request (Pamela Chestek)
> 2. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7 (Pamela Chestek)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 09:16:26 -0400
> From: Pamela Chestek <pamela.chestek at opensource.org>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] license review request
> Message-ID: <35514021-323d-bee1-81cd-92c1d6ef510a at opensource.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi Seung-Eon,
>
> As others have said, this is the 2-clause BSD license, which is already
> an OSI-approved license. You therefore can use the license for any
> purpose where an open source license is required.
>
> I will mark you license request as withdrawn.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> On 10/16/2020 12:14 PM, Eric Schultz wrote:
> > Seung-Eon,
> >
> > Thank you for intending to release your code under an open source
> > license! Our entire community benefits from individuals like yourself.
> >
> > At first glance, your appears to be using the 2-clause BSD license. If
> > you are submitting that license with your name as the copyright
> > holder, I'm happy to let you know that you don't have to. Part of the
> > power of the OSD and the licenses that meet its definition is that you
> > don't have to ask anyone to release your code under an OSI license.
> > You are welcome to apply any of the licenses verbatim, with only your
> > name as the copyright holder added, and your users will receive the
> > benefits that derive from the OSD. There's no need for you to ask
> > anyone, including this list, to do so.
> >
> > While, from my first glance, you don't appear to be modifying the
> > 2-clause BSD license, if you are, then you may have to submit that
> > license to this list. Is that your intention?
> >
> > Thanks so much for the work you do and your (apparent) interest in
> > user freedom,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:15 PM Seung-Eon Roh <sroh3 at jhmi.edu
> > <mailto:sroh3 at jhmi.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <http://opensource.org> email address.
> >
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate
> > wwahammy.com <http://wwahammy.com>
> > eric at wwahammy.com <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com>
> > @wwahammy
> > Pronouns: He/his/him
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201019/09410fe6/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:51:07 -0400
> From: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7
> Message-ID: <bde2c450-29b0-e2ab-049f-088f85bfc014 at chesteklegal.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> I believe this license is very flawed because it treats all supposed
> "IP" the same way. There is no clearly defined group of rights that are
> considered "IP." Even the three exclusive rights commonly assigned to
> that category (copyright, patent and trademark) have different policy
> reasons for existing and trying to treat them all the same way is, in my
> view, misguided.
>
> Copyright and patents are somewhat similar, protecting that which is
> original and creative. Trademarks, though, are for the protection of
> commerce and fair competition. This license makes no sense for
> trademarks (which is why FOSS license almost never encompass
> trademarks). Trademark exist only because someone has exercised
> exclusivity over a word. If I adopt a trademark "Escalator" for a set of
> mechanical stairs, but I then tolerate (or license) everyone using the
> the word "escalator" for that same device, then it's not a trademark
> anymore because it doesn't denote a single source. A similar concept is
> true in trade secret rights - something is a trade secret because it's a
> secret. If everyone gets to use it then it's not a trade secret anymore.
>
> Trademarks are used to prevent consumer deception. If one cannot stop
> misuse of their trademark, then there would be no recourse against
> someone who might be causing great harm. Suppose I have a software
> program that prevents the installation of malicious software and it is
> licensed under the Anti-IP license. Some can take that very same
> software, modify it so that it is itself malicious software, and
> distribute it with the same name. Under this license there is nothing
> the original author can do to stop that harmful behavior. That's a bad
> outcome. It's made even more confusing by your proposed term "No
> Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit fraud." Is
> "likelihood of confusion" in trademark law what you mean by "fraud"? And
> how will the person relying on the license know when their use is lawful
> or unlawful? The premise of your license doesn't make sense for trademarks.
>
> Universal treatment doesn't make any sense in many of the areas you
> identified in the license. Why should privacy rights, which protect an
> individual, be treated the same way as exclusionary rights in copyright
> and patent? Aren't the interests quite different? Isn't is generally
> considered beneficial that an individual may stop the unwanted use of
> their personal information by third parties? What is gained by forcing
> someone to give that up? Same with fair competition, isn't the ability
> to ensure fair competition beneficial to society?
>
> For "Restricted Work," you've used the word "derivative," but that is a
> word very specific to copyright law. It's use in other areas is
> impossibly ambiguous. What is a "Restricted Work" in anti-circumvention
> rights for example, where there isn't the concept of "infringement"?
>
> In terms of drafting, I'm not sure what you intend with "Restricted
> works may only be assigned to someone that has publicly licensed IP
> under this document." Does that mean that if I want to assign the rights
> in a Restricted work to someone who is already using the license for a
> /different/ work? Why? And what does "publicly licensed" mean in the
> Copyleft section of the license? The word "public" is very unclear.
>
> If I own a Public Restricted work, I have to assign it away? That
> doesn't make sense. If you mean /if/ I assign it, /then/ I must assign
> it to a particular person or alternatively grant everyone rights, why is
> the assignment of Restricted works different from Public Restricted
> works? And what does it mean to "grant everyone rights to the work under
> this document"? Isn't that what the license accomplishes, whether it
> says so in this section or not? What does that sentence add?
>
> I believe this license needs substantial drafting work before it could
> be approved. I agree with others that it needs the assistance of an
> attorney who is experienced in drafting licenses - drafting legal
> documents is a specialized skill. I am also skeptical it would ever be
> approved because I think it is a fundamental error to try to lump all
> "IP" together. I suggest withdrawing it from license-review while these
> issues are more thoroughly considered.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
>
>
> On 10/16/20 11:26 AM, Alex Williams wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto:license-review-request at lists.opensource.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> > license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <
> 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
> > <mailto:license-review-request at lists.opensource.org>
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> > <http://opensource.org> email address.
> > >
> > > License-review mailing list
> > > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license->
> > > review_lists.opensource.org <http://review_lists.opensource.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:08:09 +0100
> > From: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com <mailto:simon at webmink.com>>
> > To: mccoy at lexpan.law,? License submissions for OSI review
> > ? ? ? ? <license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] license review request
> > Message-ID:
> > ? ? ? ?
> > <CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54+s7yiJ2o55cwXW+QCjQKPyOFhg at mail.gmail.com
> > <mailto:
> CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54%2Bs7yiJ2o55cwXW%2BQCjQKPyOFhg 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
> > <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
> > <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
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <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
> > <
> 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
> > <mailto:implementnap at gmail.com>>
> > To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto: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
> > <
> 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
> > <mailto:kevin%2Bosi at km6g.us>>
> > To: License submissions for OSI review
> > ? ? ? ? <license-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto: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
> > <mailto:FKOCFbwEQq%2BADJKoY47sFfSqRQu06Tr_-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 <mailto: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 <http://opensource.org> email address.
> > >
> > > License-review mailing list
> > > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > >
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_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
> > <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> > <
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7
> > *********************************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201019/4ec6bb5d/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 14
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201020/0bfe8f6e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list