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

Pamela Chestek pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Mon May 27 14:09:05 UTC 2019

HI Wayne,

Thank you for submitting the license. I agree with the others who have
commented; the license is quite difficult to understand because of the
misuse of many English words and grammatical errors. There are also
writing techniques and conventions that make a licenses clearer and more
predictably applied that are absent from this license.

Then, because of the difficulty of the text, I cannot work on
understanding the licensing concepts you are proposing.

I suggest that you withdraw the license for now because of the further
work that is needed. I would also suggest starting a thread on
license-discuss (license-discuss at lists.opensource.org) about the
concepts that you would like to employ, to get feedback on whether they
would be acceptable for an approved license. If after discussion it
appears that the OSI might approve a license of the type you propose,
you can get assistance with conveying the concepts more clearly in a
legal document and resubmitting the revised version.

Best regards,


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 5/27/2019 9:18 AM, Wayne A Rangel wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>> wrote:
>>     From: Wayne A Rangel <waynerangelboy at gmail.com
>>     <mailto: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.
>>     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.
>     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.
>     Sean
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto: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/20190527/1daa4ae0/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list