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

[Bruce Perens]

Wayne,

I suggest that you withdraw this license from evaluation, and do some more
work upon it. I do not recommend it for acceptance at this time.

It's obviously not the product of a lawyer. I have previously worked on the
case J*acobsen v. Katzer, *in which an Open Source developer paid tens of
thousands of dollars in losses and five years of hardship in court because
he relied on the Artistic License Zero license written by Larry Wall,
rather than a license from an attorney. These licenses are very unlikely to
do what you expect when a judge goes to parse them - which is the only
purpose of a license. Thus, it is an active disservice to the programmers
of the world to present them with a license which is unlikely to work as
they expect in court, and is likely to cause them damages. So, please get a
lawyer to write a license for you.

As others have commented, it is very difficult to parse in English.

And I think you need to discuss with a lawyer how the present licenses
would be enforced against sites that took technical measures to prevent
source code downloading. You will probably find that existing licenses
handle this issue adequately.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    Thanks

    Bruce


On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:29 AM 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
>


-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190528/882f1180/attachment.html>