3 ms·

Most open source licenses seem to be phrased based on US legal terms. The US legal system differs a lot from other parts of the world, such as civil law systems

Most open source licenses seem to be phrased based on US legal terms. The US legal system differs a lot from other parts of the world, such as civil law systems as practiced many others. I wonder whether there are implications with other legal systems, such as law in countries of the european union, where also different legal traditions with regards to copyright exist. I think I once saw an open source, copy-left license for the EU. But never one in the spirit of BSD/MIT/Apache.

bjoli 8y ago
Well, take the ISC license (works everywhere where they ratified the Berne convention) and remove most of of the warranties and you have a EU license. Most of the EU countries lack laws about merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or at least lacks the need to be explicit about it (either because a "software provided "as is" without any warranties" will be enough to disclaim all warranties, or because you can't disclaim some warranties). Just make sure it works in your jurisdiction. Any international questions will, iirc, be governed by whatever the UN deal is called which is a bit more lax about implied warranties that UCC in the US. But it is a minefield anyway, so just use the ISC license.
JNRowe 8y ago
> I think I once saw an open source, copy-left license for the EU. Perhaps this was the EUPL¹. As someone who works for a company that has occasionally been forced to use it for a contract, I'm pretty sure people don't choose it. Every time it has come up in a talk about a project, you have to answer basic questions about it :/ > But never one in the spirit of BSD/MIT/Apache Nor me, but I've seen people mention the idea a few times in conversations about patents normally. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence
- clacke2 8y ago
  The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence is a permissive license designed and used by a country that is for at least two weeks more an EU member.
kemitchell 8y ago
You're right about open source licenses. As a rule, they're US-centric, which is not what I'd prefer, were I all-knowing and every-qualified. But I'm just a US lawyer. We had some very valuable, indirect feedback on Blue Oak from lawyers qualified elsewhere. But not enough. I'd be very interested in inviting specialists from other systems to comment, publicly and privately. Moral rights in their various forms. Differing rules on warranty and damages exclusion enforcement. Things I don't know to ask about. As for licenses of European origin, someone already mentioned EUPL. I'd add https://opensource.org/licenses/CECILL-2.1 https://opensource.org/licenses/CECILL-2.1. I'm likely forgetting at least one. To end on a happy note, I'd point out that plainer language can actually help jurisdictional portability. Compare the copyright and patent sections of Blue Oak and Apache 2.0, for example. Apache 2.0 takes the typical US legal approach of listing out the exclusive rights of copyright holders, and the actions constituting infringement of a patent, under US copyright and patent statutes. Apache 2.0 does not specify US governing law, but speaks in terms of US law. Blue Oak doesn't list out statutory verbs. It identifies the sets, rather than their specific elements.

bjoli 8y ago

Well, take the ISC license (works everywhere where they ratified the Berne convention) and remove most of of the warranties and you have a EU license. Most of the EU countries lack laws about merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or at least lacks the need to be explicit about it (either because a "software provided "as is" without any warranties" will be enough to disclaim all warranties, or because you can't disclaim some warranties). Just make sure it works in your jurisdiction. Any international questions will, iirc, be governed by whatever the UN deal is called which is a bit more lax about implied warranties that UCC in the US. But it is a minefield anyway, so just use the ISC license.

JNRowe 8y ago

> I think I once saw an open source, copy-left license for the EU. Perhaps this was the EUPL¹. As someone who works for a company that has occasionally been forced to use it for a contract, I'm pretty sure people don't choose it. Every time it has come up in a talk about a project, you have to answer basic questions about it :/ > But never one in the spirit of BSD/MIT/Apache Nor me, but I've seen people mention the idea a few times in conversations about patents normally. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence

clacke2 8y ago
The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence is a permissive license designed and used by a country that is for at least two weeks more an EU member.

kemitchell 8y ago

You're right about open source licenses. As a rule, they're US-centric, which is not what I'd prefer, were I all-knowing and every-qualified. But I'm just a US lawyer. We had some very valuable, indirect feedback on Blue Oak from lawyers qualified elsewhere. But not enough. I'd be very interested in inviting specialists from other systems to comment, publicly and privately. Moral rights in their various forms. Differing rules on warranty and damages exclusion enforcement. Things I don't know to ask about. As for licenses of European origin, someone already mentioned EUPL. I'd add https://opensource.org/licenses/CECILL-2.1 https://opensource.org/licenses/CECILL-2.1. I'm likely forgetting at least one. To end on a happy note, I'd point out that plainer language can actually help jurisdictional portability. Compare the copyright and patent sections of Blue Oak and Apache 2.0, for example. Apache 2.0 takes the typical US legal approach of listing out the exclusive rights of copyright holders, and the actions constituting infringement of a patent, under US copyright and patent statutes. Apache 2.0 does not specify US governing law, but speaks in terms of US law. Blue Oak doesn't list out statutory verbs. It identifies the sets, rather than their specific elements.