Re:Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses
by kemitchell on Saturday March 09, 2019 @11:51PM
(#19350358)
I place an immense focus on US law. It's the only law I'm qualified to practice.
We were able to incorporate indirect feedback from very competent UK counsel. Not as much as I'd like. For example, the inclusion of "condition" in No Liability makes no sense under US law, but reflects a technical distinction in some UK jurisdictions.
I'd like to draw in more input from counsel elsewhere, which is part of the reason we published versioned 1.0.0 from the get-go.
Re:Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses
by chrisseaton on Saturday March 09, 2019 @03:09PM
(#19348180)
Does he have professional expertise in law outside of the US?
I think lawyers generally don't comment in their professional capacity on things they aren't experts on. Engineers could learn to do the same!
I get it, Silicon Valley is important. But there's other places, too. I don't feel like they have been given enough attention in this new license.
Meanwhile, the Blue Oak license leaves unadressed the problem of European moral rights in copyright[1]. Similarly, the issue of someone simply not reading the terms and just taking the code, similar to EULAs, is left unexplained. The Blue Oak license assumes acceptance and agreement, which may not actually hold up in court and lead to a different result.
[1] cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors%27_rights for an introduction