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

Pamela Chestek pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Wed May 29 20:38:46 UTC 2019

Hi Wayne,

Since you started a discussion about this license on license-discuss, we
are going to assume that you have withdrawn the submission from the
OSI's consideration for now.

Best regards,


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 5/27/2019 10:09 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> 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,
> Pam
> 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/20190529/6b2a705c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list