[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 119, Issue 14
Legal Desk
legal at muellners.org
Sat Aug 26 09:41:44 UTC 2023
Please see our attempt to bring clarity to the submission checklist above:
OSD 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
(Y) The license *DOES NOT* discriminate against persons or groups. There
is Article 5 in the License, which observes the ''Exclusion'' rights of the
Authors and Contributors, in the context of Exclusion≠Discrimination.
''Any person or group can receive the redistribution Grant, become a
Licensee, or a Licensor(see definitions) and use the Work for any field of
endeavour.'' *Let's consider one(1) real-world example;*
Step 1: 1st Jan 2023: License grants the rights to *ANY* person.
*License does not discriminate whether the legal persons are extremely
violent groups like terrorists, hackers, or data merchants, the grant is
immediate, and the 'non discriminated' entity begins to use the Grant. *
Step 2: 1st Jan 2023: The person enjoys the *NON* discriminated rights and
redistributes.
*just like everybody, the 'non-discriminated' entity redistributes Work,
but triggers Step 3 below.*
Step 3: 30th Feb 2023: Trigger: *'non-discriminated' entity turns into a
'bad actor'*
e.g. 'intentionally' 'uses' the attributed Work for systematically crashing
the autopilot function of an automobile or an aeroplane.
Step 4: 30th Feb 2023: Cognizance of the trigger;
*The intended 'use' or 'purpose' or 'both' are made cognizant to the
Licensor in a litigation or suo moto.*
Step 5: 30th Feb 2023: Invoking Article 5 to revoke the grant.
To avoid any further such type of ''intended'' use of the Grant by that
''bad actor'' Licensee.
So, a revocable grant is the feature of the license, in Step 3. We can also
treat Article 5 provisions for a post-incidence legal control, for the
protection of other Licensors and Licensees, ''reusing'' the Grant.
Therefore,
a. It is our request to the Chair, License Committee, to please clarify/or
disclose your understanding of Article 5 to substantiate/refute/establish
whether Article 5≅OSD 5 spec.
b. Secondly, are there any
(1) *latest*, (2) *consensus-driven ...*guidelines for the License
Submission Process, which are *specific and highly contextual to AI systems*
so that we can use them for a ready reference? i.e. do we have a consensus
on the definition of what ''open source'' really means in the context of
the redistribution of AI systems, ? This submission is based on the ones
updated on 22nd Aug.
Thanks and have a great weekend ahead.
Additional Note on the thread above;
(Y)* except* Article 5 which sets up the relinquishment of rights
or .......................................
>>Explanation: *''except''* here is a caveat to indicate the presence of
Article 5 to the list members, in order for a focused review of Article 5,
and disambiguate any congruence b/w OSD written guidelines.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 5:09 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: Request for Approval of 'new' Open Constitution License X
> (Pamela Chestek)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 08:07:34 -0700
> From: Pamela Chestek <pamela.chestek at opensource.org>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for Approval of 'new' Open
> Constitution License X
> Message-ID: <6e9cd87e-91d1-9d8b-f063-262a7fed61cf at opensource.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> > OSD 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> >
> > /(Y) except Article 5 which sets up relinquishment of rights or
> > observing exclusion rights attached to any property, against events as
> > a consequence of violent persons or groups, or prevention of cyber
> > security harm, and observance of beneficiary data, which is localised
> > in the attributed AI system. /
> >
>
> "Yes, except" is "No." This license does not meet the OSD and will not
> be considered for approval.
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> On 8/25/2023 6:51 AM, Legal Desk via License-review wrote:
> > ?Dear all,
> > It is our humble request for the approval and procedural review of the
> > ?new? Open Constitution License x.
> >
> > Section A: Submission Checklist
> >
> > *
> >
> > Submit a copy of the license as an attachment in simple text
> > format. (Y)
> >
> > *
> >
> > /It is our understanding that the Open Constitution License x
> > complies with the Open Source Definition, including specifically
> > affirming it meets OSD 3, 5, 6 and 9./
> >
> > /OSD Definition compliance/
> >
> >
> > OSD 3. Derived Works
> >
> > /(Y) See Article 1 and Definitions of Derivative Work, Localization,
> > Source Object, Article 6./
> >
> >
> > OSD 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> >
> > /(Y) except Article 5 which sets up relinquishment of rights or
> > observing exclusion rights attached to any property, against events as
> > a consequence of violent persons or groups, or prevention of cyber
> > security harm, and observance of beneficiary data, which is localised
> > in the attributed AI system. /
> >
> >
> > OSD 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> >
> > /(Y) License terms can be practised in a multi-disciplinary
> > environment, by any party, in any jurisdiction, or in any field of
> > endeavour./
> >
> > OSD 9. License must not restrict other software License terms do not
> > hinder distribution or attribution of third-party I.P. where a
> > third-party software is part of the redistribution, exercised by the
> > Licensee.
> >
> > *
> >
> > Identify what projects are already usingthe license.
> >
> > /The License is put to use on the Open Constitution network and is
> > reusable by any Licensor or Licensee in the course of the lifecycle of
> > Work./
> >
> > *
> >
> > Provide the identity and contact details of the license steward,
> > if known, and of the submitter. The OSI will try to get in touch
> > with the license steward if the license submitter is not the steward.
> >
> > /Open Constitution S/I (?vrige virksomhedsformer), Not for Profit
> > Association that runs and maintains the Open Constitution Network.
> > CVR: 43714775/
> >
> > /legal at muellners.org/ <mailto:legal at muellners.org>
> >
> > *
> >
> > Provide any additional information that the submitter believes
> > would be helpful for license review. For example, approval of the
> > license by Debian, the FSF or the Fedora Project would be relevant
> > to the review process.
> >
> > /Prior submission to this License Review Process was withdrawn for
> > procedural faults in the submission, and this submission is based on
> > updated (on August 22, 2023) guidelines of the Open Source Initiative
> > published here <https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/>/
> >
> > /The list where the discussion took on the prior submission is here
> > <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2023-August/005392.html>.
>
> > We are thankful to the esteemed reviewers who pointed to the
> > procedural faults in our earlier submission./
> >
> > *
> >
> > Provide a unique namefor the license, preferably including the
> > version number.
> >
> > /Open Constitution license x/
> >
> > *
> >
> > If any exist, provide the unique identifier by other projects,
> > like SPDX or ScanCode.(n/a)
> >
> > *
> >
> > Identify any proposed tagsfor the license (when available; see
> > below regarding tagging).
> >
> > N/a, not sure, Please tag as applicable based on the review process.
> >
> > *
> >
> > Describe what gap not filled by currently existing licenses that
> > the new license will fill.
> >
> > /In addition to giving permission to redistribute, The Open
> > Constitution License specifically addresses AI technology and data
> > models. It introduces electronic persons as Licensors and contributors
> > (read benefactors) to accommodate provisions for machine entities
> > contributing to the lifecycle of open-source AI systems./
> >
> > /The License introduces authenticated authorisation to the
> > localisation of data models. /
> >
> > /The License establishes generic Negation clauses attached to
> > redistribution that limit adverse material effects specifically
> > physical harm to humans, security provision and data integrity of the
> > AI systems. /
> >
> > /Negation clauses result in the relinquishment of rights from the
> > Licensee./
> >
> > /The License introduces a requirement of maintaining public
> > accessibility to the Source Object, by any party which redistributes
> > Work./
> >
> > /The License introduces the ability of creators to tokenise the
> > contributions in such a way that any variation of Work can be
> > optimally tokenised to the planet?s population, i.e. accessibility
> > through tokenization is to all./
> >
> > The License is intended for international use.
> >
> > *
> >
> > Compare it to and contrast it with the most similar OSI-approved
> > license(s).
> >
> > /The Open Constitution License x(OCLx) is a novel open-source license
> > that grants intellectual property rights attached to a data model of
> > an Artificial Intelligence system or network. It sets out rules for
> > data integrity, authorization, and redistribution of models through a
> > publicly accessible network. The license considers factors such as
> > open data principles, copyrightability of AI/ML systems, data privacy,
> > fair/
> >
> > /competition, and responsibilityin AI/ML-driven decisions. /
> >
> > /Responsibility is grounded in Article 5 to ensure license rights are
> > revocable in the event of adverse material effects. /
> >
> > /
> > /
> >
> > /OCL *differs from other open-source licenses* in its focus on AI and
> > its specific provisions for data protection, international law, and
> > the role of the public network./
> >
> > /
> > /
> >
> > /It introduces General Public Tokenization and Electronic Persons
> > contributors in the context of open source I.P.R./
> >
> >
> > /OCL establishes a chain of authorship *similar to* EUPL-1.2 or a
> > restriction on the Licensee for data integrity performance when
> > redistributing to a beneficiary,* similar to *CAL1.0./
> >
> > *
> >
> > Describe any legal review the license has been through, including
> > whether it was drafted by a lawyer.
> >
> > T/he Open Constitution License Initiative has been created through an
> > incremental review as a consequence of the practical //implementation
> > of network policies/
> > <
> https://docs.muellners.info/open-source-policies/open-source-usage-and-delivery-policies>/e.g.
>
> > Open source policies, IP lifecycle Policies, and Acceptable Usage
> > Policies, on the contributions delivery subnet of the Open
> > Constitution Network(an AI system)./
> >
> >
> > /(See the Network diagram here
> > <https://docs.muellners.info/oc-network/network-diagram>.) /
> >
> > /The first draft of the License was written based on the AI network?s
> > use pattern. Therefore, to extend the License terms or capabilities
> > for use by any general party, attributing their data model for
> > reducing to practice in open source, this Open Constitution License X
> > is submitted for review here./
> >
> > /
> > /
> >
> > /The License drafting process has drawn inferences from studying the
> > legal drafts of the Licenses listed here
> > <
> https://license.openconstitution.us/research-resources/relevant-resources>and
>
> > studying the practical implications of the third-party attributions
> > listed on the Open Constitution Network?s Open Source Policy here
> > <
> https://docs.muellners.info/open-source-policies/open-source-usage-and-delivery-policies#a.-list-of-open-source-projects>.
>
> > A few relevant resources are also listed here
> > <https://license.openconstitution.us/research-resources>./
> >
> >
> > Section B: License Draft/Wording/Language Checklist
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > The license must be reusable, meaning that it can be used by any
> > licensor without changing the terms or having the terms achieve a
> > different result for a different licensor.
> >
> > /(Y) Please read Section Definitions: Licensee, Licensor /
> >
> > /Any redistribution attached to the localisation of the data model of
> > the AI systems will originate from the assignment of license rights
> > from Licensor 1 >Licensee 1 and then Licensee 1 = Licensor 2 >
> > Licensee 2, Hence, /
> >
> > /?Licensee N= Licensor N+1 assigning rights to Licensee N+1/
> >
> > 2.
> >
> > The license does not have terms that structurally put the licensor
> > in a more favoured position than any licensee.
> >
> > /(Y) Please read Article 10 where the jurisdiction is contextually in
> > favour of the Licensor./
> >
> > 3.
> >
> > To the extent that any terms are ambiguous, the ambiguity must not
> > have a material effect on the application of the license.
> >
> > /(Y) It is our understanding that Section: Definitions have been
> > drafted to reduce contextualambiguity. We have tried our best to
> > simplify the introduced terminology, and future versions may align
> > well with the evolving linguistic conventions./
> >
> > /Since the regulatory environment in the AI realms is evolving, the
> > License draft is open to any interpretation and may be debatable for a
> > common consensus, if there is a larger ambiguity. /
> >
> > 4.
> >
> > The license must be grammatically and syntactically clear to a
> > speaker of the language of the license.
> >
> > /(Y) Grammar checks have been observed using Grammarly, but AI
> > suggestions for language have not been used, since the statements are
> > highly contextualto the field of study and Grammer AI tools start
> > hallucinating./
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > Every possible variation of the application of the license must
> > meet the OSD.
> >
> > /(Y) including any linguistic translation (please see Article 6) /
> >
> > 6.
> >
> > It must be possible to comply with the license on submission. As
> > an example, given the scope of copyleft in the Server Side Public
> > License (SSPL), it is not a license that anyone currently would be
> > able to comply with.
> >
> > /(Y) and studied the related List Conversation/
> >
> > 7.
> >
> > The license must fill a gap that currently existing licenses do
> > not fill.
> >
> > /addresses AI systems/
> >
> > 8.
> >
> > The text must be the complete license; overlays like Commons
> > Clause and exceptions like ClassPath will not be approved in
> > isolation from the license they modify.
> >
> > /License does not have any linkage to any additional document, and is
> > an independent execution of rights between two parties, without
> > prejudice to any additional agreement b/w these parties. /
> >
> > *Section C: Additional Guidelines listed by OSI *
> >
> > 1.
> >
> > An express statement that no patent license is granted. The
> > failure to grant a patent license means the license fails to meet
> > OSD 6, 7 and 8. A license that makes no statement at all about
> > patents may be acceptable, depending on whether the way the
> > license grant is expressed can be read as an implied grant, e.g.,
> > the 3-Clause BSD License that permits the ?use? of the software.
> >
> > /Please See Article 1 for the grant of patent rights to make use of
> > the permission of redistribution./
> >
> > 2.
> >
> > Badgeware. A ?badgeware? license is one that requires that a
> > trademark be displayed. This does not comply with OSD 3, ?Derived
> > Works,? because it prohibits creating a derived work that removes
> > the code relating to the trademark. Although open-source licenses
> > can prohibit the removal of author attribution and legal notices,
> > a trademark is neither. It also fails OSD 10, because it presumes
> > a specific style of interface.
> >
> > /OCL x does not require any tm attribution, please see Article 9./
> >
> > 3.
> >
> > Non-commercial and ethical clauses. These are commonly seen
> > attempts to restrict licenses in violation of OSD 6, ?No
> > Discrimination Against Field of Endeavor.? These types of clauses
> > limit where why and how the software can be used.
> >
> > /Please review or debate Article 5./
> >
> > /The intent of adding the clause is to honour exclusion rights
> > attached to a natural person?s private property, and therefore
> > negation clauses have been added to establish these generic base
> > conditions - no physical harm, data integrity, and security attacks. /
> >
> > /We believe that this does not discriminate against fields of
> > endeavour, as the Article points to relinquishment as a consequence of
> > a Licensee?s intended use or purpose or both. /
> >
> > /In other words, this may mean that the Licensee may have already
> > exercised redistribution rights attached to software freedom granted
> > in this license and as a consequence of that act, and it is
> > established that such act has resulted in an adverse material effect,
> > the Licensee?s rights stand revocable. /
> >
> > /This means there is an intent to include ethical grounds linked to AI
> > systems, but respecting the voluntary action of a natural person, a
> > provision or space has been made for Self-realization by the entity
> > practising the License grant, in such a way that the clause stands to
> > (1) benefit contributors, and (2)enforces Work integrity, specifically
> > in a post-incidence scenario./
> >
> > 4.
> >
> > Conditional licensing. Licenses with variable outcomes like BUSL
> > that delay the availability of full software freedom won?t be
> > approved because we cannot be sure that they meet the OSD for all
> > use cases at all times. Licenses like the Sun Industry Standards
> > Source License (SISSL) that apply different OSI-approved licenses
> > depending on conditions havebeen approved in the past.
> >
> > /(Y) No delayed availability of full software freedom, but please note
> > the revocability of granted rights, in the post-incidence scenario of
> > Article 5./
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > Phone-home provisions: licenses that require that software
> > interact with a specific organisation, website, or
> > non-user-controlled API both restrict where the software can be
> > used and prevent it from being used at all should the contact
> > entity cease operation.? This fails OSD 5 and sometimes 8 and 10
> > as well.
> >
> > /(Y) The License has no connection to the License Steward; Open
> > Constitution network, and its fiscal hosts or affiliate legal bodies
> > or any network Resource, infrastructure or cloud-based license manager
> > service etc. other than that the License Steward publishes the License
> > for General Public Use, or maintaining linguistic copies, or versions
> > thereof, or support advocacy and adoption of the License versions./
> >
> > */Section D: ADDITIONAL NOTES ABOUT SUBMISSION: /*
> >
> > /1. Attached OCL x .txt file/
> >
> > /2. A Public Review copy is available here
> > <https://license.openconstitution.us/versions/public-review-copy-ocl-x>
> > where explanatory comments have been published. You can also use a
> > *static* draft reference of the OCL x
> > <
> https://license.openconstitution.us/versions/open-constitution-license-x>?for
>
> > your perusal and as a ready reference./
> >
> > /3. Please let us know or contact us beforehand about any errors or
> > omissions in this submission procedure before initiating a thorough
> > license review process./
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Legal Desk
> > Muellners Foundation
> >
> > Impressum- Muellners? "frivillig forening"; Voluntary Association,
> > Copenhagen, Denmark CVR:41008407
> >
> > This mail is governed by Muellners?? IT policy.
> > The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying
> > documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise
> > protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of
> > this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error,
> > please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete
> > this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination,
> > distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone
> > other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages
> > sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by
> > applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal
> > policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and
> > cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted,
> > amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have
> > accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20230825/5914da65/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 119, Issue 14
> ***********************************************
>
--
Legal Desk
Muellners Foundation
Impressum- Muellners® "frivillig forening"; Voluntary Association,
Copenhagen, Denmark CVR:41008407
This mail is governed by Muellners® IT policy.
The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if
this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert
the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any
attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents
of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be
monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure
compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails
are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed
to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230826/f9956f41/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-review
mailing list