Legal Documents Whitelist

Title: Legal Documents Whitelist
DRACC: 0013
Category: Regulatory
Scope: Global
Authors: Leenaars, M.A.G.J.; Šuklje, M.
Date: January 2017
Copyright: The Commons Conservancy

This doc­u­ment is part of the DRACC se­ries, see DRACC “In­tro­duc­tion to ­DRACC Se­ries” for an ex­pla­na­tion. You can re­use it un­der a “Cre­ative ­Com­mons At­tri­bu­tion 4.0 In­ter­na­tion­al” li­cense.

Introduction

When a rights hold­er wants to trans­fer in­tan­gi­ble as­sets to [The Com­mon­s ­Con­ser­van­cy], there are many dif­fer­ent ways to do so. Trans­fer­ring as­sets is not a manda­to­ry re­quire­men­t, but is rec­om­mend­ed in many cir­cum­stances.

Writ­ing le­gal doc­u­ments around in­tan­gi­ble as­set trans­fer and li­cens­ing is ­com­plex, al­so due to the het­ero­ge­neous glob­al na­ture of the sub­ject mat­ter, and lack of clar­i­ty may lead to un­ex­pect­ed sur­pris­es and un­de­sir­able li­a­bil­i­ties — and may com­pli­cate in­ter­nal pro­cess­es spe­cif­ic to [The Com­mons Con­ser­van­cy] ­such as an As­set Shar­ing sce­nari­o. Un­bri­dled pro­lif­er­a­tion of dif­fer­en­t ­doc­u­ments is al­so con­fus­ing to end users and de­vel­op­er­s. At the same time, [The ­Com­mons Con­ser­van­cy] does not want to lim­it a Pro­gramme in de­sign­ing and us­ing a doc­u­ment to cater for spe­cif­ic needs it may have.

Use of the LDW

Pro­vi­sion­al to its own statutes and reg­u­la­tion­s, a Pro­gramme is free to use any ­doc­u­ment it choos­es for ob­tain­ing as­sets at its own re­spon­si­bil­i­ty and risk. This in­cludes the abil­i­ty to use self­-writ­ten le­gal doc­u­ments craft­ed specif­i­cal­ly for the Pro­gramme. How­ev­er, on­ly as­sets ob­tained through a ­doc­u­ment that is on the LWD are con­sid­ered as “safe” for all sce­nar­ios of Rights En­force­ment (see DRACC “Rights En­force­men­t”) and for oth­er func­tions and pro­cess­es such as re­li­cens­ing, Shared As­set Fork­ing and As­set Shar­ing be­tween and be­yond Lin­eal and Col­lat­er­al De­scen­dants (see DRACC “Map­ping Rights to Pro­grammes”, DRACC “Pro­gramme Fork­ing” and DRACC “As­set Shar­ing”) al­ready joint­ly in­her­it­ing as­set­s.

In case a Pro­gramme needs ac­tions to be tak­en in­volv­ing as­sets and right­s ob­tained through doc­u­ments not on the LD­W, [The Com­mons Con­ser­van­cy] is like­ly no longer the right ve­hi­cle for the Pro­gramme and a Pro­gramme SHOULD at­tempt to ­Grad­u­ate or (if this is not pos­si­ble) find al­ter­na­tive ways of meet­ing it­s de­sired goal­s.

Nominating new documents for the LWD

Any Pro­gramme with­in [The Com­mons Con­ser­van­cy] MAY nom­i­nate ad­di­tion­al ­doc­u­ments to be adopt­ed on the LD­W. The nom­i­na­tion MUST be ac­com­pa­nied by a le­gal anal­y­sis by a qual­i­fied pro­fes­sion­al.

If the out­come of the re­search on the el­i­gi­bil­i­ty of a doc­u­ment is in­de­ci­sive, the Board of [The Com­mons Con­ser­van­cy] MAY de­cide to or­gan­ise a Pub­lic ­Con­sul­ta­tion (see DRACC “Pub­lic Con­sul­ta­tion”) to re­ceive wider in­put. If a ­doc­u­ment is not ac­cept­ed, it MAY be re­sub­mit­ted af­ter 3 years with the avail­abil­i­ty of new sup­port­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion.

The Le­gal Com­mit­tee MAY al­so de­cide in­stead to fast-­track the pro­posed doc­u­men­t ­by avoid­ing the Pub­lic Con­sul­ta­tion in case it deems the doc­u­ment en­tire­ly un­prob­lem­at­ic — e.g. if it is an al­ready well-­known and well-estab­lished ­doc­u­ment that has passed pub­lic le­gal re­view al­ready be­fore and is wide­ly un­der­stood to pro­tect FOSS project­s.