4 ms·

> for instance the MIT license does which clearly defined what 'as is' entails The Uniform Commercial Code defines what "as is" entails. I link the California

> for instance the MIT license does which clearly defined what 'as is' entails The Uniform Commercial Code defines what "as is" entails. I link the California Code section in the blog post: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=2316.&lawCode=COM https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... > compared to the MIT license where it uses 'person' which has a clear legal idea behind it MIT uses "persons" for licensees, not licensors. "Person" is also ambiguous as used. I hope it includes legal entities! > To me I have a lot more confidence in the MIT license or the BSD license because the legal verbiage is precise. Did you get to this part of the post? https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html#mit-and-bsd-are-hard-to-read https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice... See also this part of my line-by-line analysis of MIT: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html#license-grant https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...

xemdetia 8y ago
I agreed. 'As is' is a well defined legal term, as well as person including legal entities (hence my use of the term legal idea). The same as person in the legal sense where a person can be an individual or corporation or other invention that can be assigned property. > Did you get to this part of the post? Why would I have read this? It is no way linked as part of the OP. If it was intended to or you are part of the team that helped resolve (in reading some of the links it appears you are) but there isn't reference to your reasoning within two obvious clicks of the license. I agree with the conclusion of the line by line analysis and commentary you did, with the MIT/BSD x-clause being not what you wanted. I guess that leaves us with the obvious question: why isn't apache 2.0 what you wanted? or the CDDL? Is it just because it's 'hard to read' and people get it wrong? Where have you showed if an entity is releasing code to the wild and never intending to take on contributors that an MIT/BSD x-clause is the wrong thing to do? I still don't feel like this is better than any of what's existing. This may be because while the license may be more sound for a contributor based arrangement this license site right now does not do a great job of showing a novice in the street how to do it right and any checklist to ensure that they haven't botched it. Where's the workflow to convert MIT/BSD x-clause to Blue Oak? If the only way to understand it is to dig into a bunch of random blog posts, I don't feel like that's such a large improvement. If more time is spent making a clear way to self serve a correct arrangement I would be more inclined to support this license if some of this supporting documentation existed to provide evidence on what the intent should be.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  The magic words "as is" are defined by statute, but I'm not aware of any general rule of construction reading "person" as you describe. Contracts frequently define "Person" or "Entity" to cover both natural and legal entities/persons, because the law does not. See: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/person/ https://www.adamsdrafting.com/person/ For how Blue Oak improves over existing terms, see my write-up: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...

xemdetia 8y ago

I agreed. 'As is' is a well defined legal term, as well as person including legal entities (hence my use of the term legal idea). The same as person in the legal sense where a person can be an individual or corporation or other invention that can be assigned property. > Did you get to this part of the post? Why would I have read this? It is no way linked as part of the OP. If it was intended to or you are part of the team that helped resolve (in reading some of the links it appears you are) but there isn't reference to your reasoning within two obvious clicks of the license. I agree with the conclusion of the line by line analysis and commentary you did, with the MIT/BSD x-clause being not what you wanted. I guess that leaves us with the obvious question: why isn't apache 2.0 what you wanted? or the CDDL? Is it just because it's 'hard to read' and people get it wrong? Where have you showed if an entity is releasing code to the wild and never intending to take on contributors that an MIT/BSD x-clause is the wrong thing to do? I still don't feel like this is better than any of what's existing. This may be because while the license may be more sound for a contributor based arrangement this license site right now does not do a great job of showing a novice in the street how to do it right and any checklist to ensure that they haven't botched it. Where's the workflow to convert MIT/BSD x-clause to Blue Oak? If the only way to understand it is to dig into a bunch of random blog posts, I don't feel like that's such a large improvement. If more time is spent making a clear way to self serve a correct arrangement I would be more inclined to support this license if some of this supporting documentation existed to provide evidence on what the intent should be.

kemitchell 8y ago
The magic words "as is" are defined by statute, but I'm not aware of any general rule of construction reading "person" as you describe. Contracts frequently define "Person" or "Entity" to cover both natural and legal entities/persons, because the law does not. See: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/person/ https://www.adamsdrafting.com/person/ For how Blue Oak improves over existing terms, see my write-up: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...