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

Tue May 28 17:14:38 UTC 2019

Wayne,

I will second McCoy's opinion, and inform you: It is never necessary for a
license to grant rights only to the copyright holder, since the copyright
holder has all rights by default and does not need a license to grant them.

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:55 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> I'll add to the comments that this license is in non-idiomatic English and
> should be revised accordingly if it is desired to be approved.
>
>
>
> Two of the "rights" enumerated appear to me to violate OSD 5 and/or 6:
>
>
>
> -Revertive Distribution: Some Developers want the source to be safe,
> malware-free, stable .This can be monitored by the Creator, Owner or
> Trusted Authoritative and if found, they can ask the
> distributor/distributors to revert the code to being helpful rather than
> being with malicious or unstable version of the source. If still the
> distributor does not comply, the Creator, Owner or Trusted Authoritative
> can report and takedown that source. This is only an optional feature of
> this license and it is the Creator, Owner or Trusted Authoritative's choice
> to apply Revertive Distribution act. This act is granted only 3 times since
> abuse of the license can also take place or if there was a potential
> exploitation code which is still used and ignored by the owner, thus this
> is limited to 3. This Permission is granted if the source is used privately.
>
>
>
> This seems to confer a right on the Creator, Owner or a contributor the
> right to decide what modified versions are “malicious” or “unstable” and
> force takedown.  That violates OSD 6 (and OSD 5 since it discriminates
> against non-contributors).
>
>
>
> -Transcripted Use: This is not permitted except for the Creator, Owner.
> Transcripted site can be a site to view code publicly but not to be able to
> use, download and verify the code. This is required since large products
> have tons of sources. This means code to be stored and disclosed in a
> repository like base for everyone.
>
>
>
> Since this right is only conferred to the Creator or Owner, this violates
> OSD 5.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure it makes sense to do a rewrite of this license if it
> continues to have problems complying with the OSD.
>
>
>
> There are also potential Freedom Zero problems with this license as well,
> I think, although the wording is such that I can’t quite tell.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Lukas Atkinson
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 2:11 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Master-Console's Open-Source
> Definitive License(MCopdl)
>
>
>
> 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.open
>
> > source.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190528/56bd94b9/attachment-0001.html>