{"id":"OSET-PL-2.1","title":"OSET Public License version 2.1","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"http://www.osetfoundation.org/public-license","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"created","summary":"Models the OSET Public License 2.1, which is the Mozilla Public License 2.0 with a government terms section written for election technology procurement. The record mirrors MozillaPublicLicenseVersion20 and quotes the added sections. Nothing here is legal advice.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Section 2.1 grants rights \"under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) ... to use, reproduce, make available, modify, display, perform, distribute, and otherwise exploit its Contributions\" and a patent licence in 2.1(b), so dalicc:patentGrant is a permission. Section 3.2(b) lets the licensee distribute the executable form under this licence \"or sublicense it under different terms\", so dalicc:sublicense is a permission.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"The grant excludes trademark rights, so dalicc:promote is a prohibition. Section 5.2 terminates the grant on a patent infringement claim, modelled as dalicc:patentRetaliationTermination and quoted. dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited for the source code form.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"cc:ShareAlike hangs off the odrl:Set, following MozillaPublicLicenseVersion20, because section 3.1 governs all distribution of the covered software in source code form. Section 3.1 also requires \"You must cause any of Your Modifications to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files\", which MPL 2.0 itself does not, so dalicc:modificationNotice hangs off odrl:modify and odrl:derive here.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":6,"severity":"major","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Quoted verbatim: section 3.2 with its sublicensing limb, the patent retaliation clause, the litigation clause and the whole of section 9, which fixes the governing law to the law of a state or to federal law depending on who the licensee is, denies sovereign immunity and supersedes the federal acquisition regulations. The warranty and liability sections are quoted word for word.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":7,"severity":"major","field":"cc:jurisdiction","description":"Section 9.3 makes the governing law depend on the licensee: the law of a US state where the licensee is that state government, federal law where it is a federal agency, and otherwise section 8 sends litigation to the courts where the defendant has its principal place of business. No single legal system governs the licence, so cc:jurisdiction stays dalicc:worldwide and both clauses are quoted. This is a case the association may want to look at, because the record cannot show that a US government licensee is bound differently.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"dalicc:additionalClauses","description":"Section 3.5.2 lets the licensee \"place additional conditions upon the rights granted in this License to the extent necessary due to statute, judicial order, regulation ... national security, or public interest\". The vocabulary has dalicc:addLimitation but only as a flat permission or prohibition, with no way to record the condition under which it applies; proposed term dalicc:conditionalAddLimitation. Termination on breach has no property either (proposed dalicc:terminatesOnBreach).","action":"none"},{"rubric":9,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"The consistency check of app.services.composer with the dependency graph dg_default returned an empty conflict list. cc:ShareAlike is required and dalicc:ChangeLicense is prohibited, which is the combination the check expects; asserting both cc:ShareAlike and a dalicc:ChangeLicense permission would have been reported as a direct conflict.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"info","field":"record","description":"Diffed against the MPL 2.0 text rather than read in full. The record mirrors MozillaPublicLicenseVersion20, with the same additions this review group makes to MPL-2.0-no-copyleft-exception, plus dalicc:modificationNotice, which the OSET text requires and MPL 2.0 does not.","action":"none"}],"family":"Mozilla and CDDL","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"The licence uses curly quotation marks throughout; they are reproduced verbatim in the quoted clauses."}