[License-review] For Approval: Master-Console's Open-Source Definitive License(MCopdl)

Mon May 27 10:00:46 UTC 2019

- was this license already reviewed by a lawyer, or do you first want
feedback from this list?

Yes, we do want feedback from the list

- - could you explain in more detail what those “essential security
features” are that other licenses lack? Could you please provide a
rationale for them?
 Prevention of Transcripted use: An example for transcripted use will be a
company or anyone creates a open-source free software and since its
open-source,
                                                     it should be available
to the public, that is each and every part in a raw format. But that is not
in the case of transcripted use,
                                                     it allows to view code
but not access specific content, does not allow to download a specific part
which is still open-source, also
                                                     which does not allow
the integrity of the author even if its machine readable that is it keeps
the source open and free but not freely accessible.

 -Prevention of Revertive Distribution: An example for Revertive
Distribution will be a company or anyone creates a open-source free
software and since its open-source,
                                         it should be available to the
public, however, some people may use the source to make malicious instances
of the software and can spread it around
                                         with the source having integrity
of the author. Also software developers usually test their softwares and
keep their beta versions secure, but if anyone with access to
                                         that code can spread a beta
version of the software which is not totally working or interpreting
another software with liability of their own can damage the developer's
                                         hardwork itself. If the developer
thinks this as revertive distribution, can act against these sources. But
this only works for beta versions, malicious instances of
                                         free and open source software.
However, some developers host beta code publicly, they can remain to not
apply or apply this act if they see anything wrong and anyone is
                                         allowed to fork their project code
or anything, but if the developer see any instances of their code being
malicious or someone always spreading old unstable versions, they
                                         can use this act. Its their
decision. They can use this anytime but only 3 times. Why 3 times?=>
explained in license.

  - what is “transcripted use”?
Yes, GPL states the code must be machine readable. Any electronic-document
can be machine-readable, one which is hidden to be accessible is also
machine-readable. But that's not what
Transcripted use means, it means the code may be licensed, open-source and
free but the source is not distributed freely or not accessible in a
defined way, that is, its mostly hidden from raw access.
For example, a repository is a aggregation of data itself into some
accessible place of storage or it may also imply some ability to
selectively extract data. The word data here and accessible means its raw
data, like Github or Gitlab or Bitbucket is a repository hosting service
that offers the data in raw, to access-"to download, to edit(not directly),
to view in raw", no changes are made in how they are shown but interfaces
are likely everywhere.

- the license includes sentences like “This is permitted […] with the
monitoring of the Owner or Creator.” What kind of monitoring? If use
of the software is conditional on the “Owner”'s permission, that might
not be free software.

No no, The license states that their copyrighted content like their code if
not used with the same license(stated in license), is not distributed free
for all, or directly used commercially,
            or states the software to be theirs, The Owner or Creator can
willingly may monitor these things  and takedown any rebelling content
against the license but that does not mean
            that the Owner can say that software should not be free or
should not be hosted anywhere or you can't access the source.
            It just gives the actual owner to monitor any rebelling content
against the license and their circumstancial terms. This can only take
place if the content truly belongs to the Owner and only
            if found.

On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 14:42, Lukas Atkinson <opensource at lukasatkinson.de>
wrote:

> I have difficulty understanding the license because it introduces many
> novel terms, and because the English is not particularly clear. While
> fine in general, that is highly problematic for a legal document.
>
> - was this license already reviewed by a lawyer, or do you first want
> feedback from this list?
>
> - could you explain in more detail what those “essential security
> features” are that other licenses lack? Could you please provide a
> rationale for them?
>
> - what is “transcripted use”? Doesn't this clause go in the same
> direction as the GPL's requirement that the corresponding source code
> must be machine readable?
>
> - the license includes sentences like “This is permitted […] with the
> monitoring of the Owner or Creator.” What kind of monitoring? If use
> of the software is conditional on the “Owner”'s permission, that might
> not be free software.
>
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 10:29, Wayne A Rangel <waynerangelboy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Master-Console's Open-Source Definitive License is for a whole purpose
> of open-source projects
> > out there. Master-Console Inc.(https://master-console-inc.tk) is the
> owner of this license and founded this license as other licenses out there
> like Apache License or GPL were not actually compatible for security
> reasons the project was working on, therefore we casted a custom license
> which would not only help ourselves but the millions of open-source
> projects out there but it can't be done without proper approval and
> verification, then only it can seem for the license to help and people
> using it would think so. This license was created with similarity to some
> popular licenses and with essential security features which those licenses
> lacked like prevention of transcripted use. Transcripted use means which
> reveals the source publicly but does not let users access actual content,
> download and verify the integrity of the project, thus harming the
> open-source terms. An example could be this:
> https://www.androwish.org/index.html/tree?ci=tip which does let access to
> view but does not let access to part of the original source in it and
> forcibly acts to download all the source. It has many other features too,
> but plenty much writing here would take your time. However, its all listed
> in the license.
> >
> > THE LICENSE IS ATTACHED WITH THIS MAIL AS A PLAIN TEXT FILE, PLEASE READ
> AND VERIFY ALL OF ITS SOURCE. PLEASE REPLY BACK FOR APPROVAL OR REJECTION
> AND STATE WHERE IT WENT WRONG. THIS LICENSE MAY COME UNDER THE PROLIFERATION
> > CATEGORY OF A GENERAL-PURPOSE OPEN-SOURCE LICENSE LIKE MOSTLY USED
> LICENSES BUT HOWEVER FOCUSES MORE TO BEING SECURE, OPEN-SOURCE AND FREE FOR
> ALL.
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190527/82269643/attachment.html>