<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">#qt a:link{color:rgb(5, 99, 193);text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-style:solid;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-thickness:auto;}
#qt p.qt-MsoPlainText{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, at 14:39, McCoy Smith wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><div class="qt-WordSection1"><p class="qt-MsoPlainText"><span style="color:black;">This one has various basic drafting problems, for example the conditions of the license grant are strangely articulated (there's a condition on the copyright grant, a separate condition on all the grants, and no equivalent condition to the one on the copyright grant to the patent grant). I don't see any indication (<a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/">which is a requirement of submission</a>) that this was reviewed by a lawyer, and it’s not really clear to me that the other requirements for submission of a new license were met either. I think a lot of the drafting issues here could be addressed by having some sort of legal review on this license (and I don’t think submitting it to the list in the hope that the lawyers on the list will do the legal review ought to count).</span><br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This was not submitted to -review, only to -discuss, so those requirements don't apply (yet).<br></div><div><br></div></body></html>