[License-review] For Approval: Master-Console's Open-Source Definitive License(MCopdl)
Wayne A Rangel
waynerangelboy at gmail.com
Mon May 27 13:18:52 UTC 2019
This license does not include stating sources like tcl that are licensed
with BSD like license to be within or followed with this, We showed an
example site and we are not talking about AndroWish(we are
talking in General) which could not be different from what you talk about.
Yes, you are right, accessible from fossil, but not accessible from within
web, within a normal static browser(transcripted use), it does not
necessarily mean its should be in a repository or in a page. It should be
accessible as raw data(can be in any interface and doesn't mean anyone can
come and edit the raw data but should be accessible). And thanks for
figuring out the grammatical errors. We will fix it soon.
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 18:26, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-review <
license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> From: Wayne A Rangel <waynerangelboy at gmail.com>
> 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.
> Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be conflating your desire that
> some 3rd party had chosen a different Open Source license with the need for
> a different Open Source license to exist. The “transcripted use” example
> that you provide seems to be such a case, and a poor one at that because
> the Tcl/Tk license is very permissive.
> 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.
> I fail to see where there is denied access to any part of the original
> source to AndroWish. It’s in a Fossil repository which can be publicly
> cloned: fossil clone http://anonymous:www.androwish.org androwish.fossil
> Even if it were not in a public repository and even if source were not
> provided, they'd still be in full compliance with the original Tcl/Tk
> license terms — the license only requires they include a verbatim copy of
> the license in any distributions. Is there some distribution of AndroWish
> that does not provide the license terms?
> "Creator" shall mean the one who has all the copyright owns of one' own
> product who can license, unlicense or change the circumstances to comply
> with this product but not the definitions of this license.
> The Creator does not mean the one who has created the product, it only does
> mean the one who firstly licensed and published the product.
> I must admit that I stopped reading the license at this point. There are
> many grammatical and other errors throughout the document, such as using
> “owns” as a noun, that should be grounds for rejection alone.
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review