[License-review] For Approval: Open Logistics License v1.2

[Thorsten Glaser]

Pamela Chestek dixit:

> This is the language from the submitted license: "Except in cases of
> intentional and grossly negligent conduct, ..."
>
> This is the language from the EUPL: "Except in the cases of wilful
> misconduct or damages directly caused to natural persons, ...."
>
> They are different

Both sound to my naïve ears like translations of what we’d use in
German to English using the closest words we could find with certain
concepts in mind. I’ve heard both the intentional and the damages
directly done to natural persons variants… probably 15+ years ago,
I think. I wonder whether the EU has official terms for things like
that…

> On 12/5/2022 2:45 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:
>> The choice to include a choice-of-law provision is really a no-go for me
[…]
> Someone recently persuaded me that a choice of law provision is beneficial to
> the extent it provides certainty. Without it, you have no idea what law might
> apply and therefore no way to evaluate the risk.

This is something that will appeal to companies. However, in
general business with end users, consumer protection normally
says that the law to be used is that of the end user, if it’s
not B2B anyway. Isn’t this kinda the same with the licences?
Whom does OSI wish to protect more, considering both sides may
be either private individuals or big companies… (no weighing
from my side, just providing food for thought).

And isn’t the Berne Convention already making the country of
the *recipient* of the licence the binding one anyway? AIUI,
it states that a work from country A does receive the same
protections in country B as a native B’s work enjoys. So, for
licences (as opposed to business contracts), this probably is
already specified?

Still IANAL, but I probably should goto bed;
//mirabilos
-- 
  “Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
          a peeing section in a swimming pool.”
						-- Edward Burr