[License-review] Approval submission for the Qlovatech License

[Quentin Quaadgras]

Hi,

I'd like the Open Source Initiative to consider approving the Qlovatech License. I have developed the license to fill a gap in the open source licensing sphere for use in projects I am developing that are intended to be open source and I want other developers to be able to adopt this license for their projects.



International trademark protection is expensive and nothing stops a large company from taking an open-source project from a small to medium community and stealing the 'brand' and/or title of that project in order to make money from that brand. The Qlovatech license is a strong library-level copyleft license and is designed to automatically protect the brand and/or title of any project it covers, whilst preserving the rights of every user of the software. The author and any contributors to the project can be confident that the brand they establish for their project and/or the brands of any forks will not be exploited by other companies or organizations for commercial gain. Everyone has the right to create a new brand from their copy of the software, or to rename and/or rebrand the software so that it will be protected by this license.


The Qlovatech License is attached in plaintext below and I believe that it is a special-purpose open-source license that meets the OSI's definition. The license fits somewhere between:
The GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPL-3.0), the Artistic License 2.0, the Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0) and the The 3-Clause BSD License (BSD3).

I am aware that existing open-source licenses can have additional terms added to them in order to protect the Integrity of The Author's Source Code, however I wanted an open-source license that any developer can apply to their software without any license modification, so that it automatically protects their brand and the brand of any derivatives of that software. As far as copyleft goes, I wanted this to apply to the scope of a project/library rather than the entire program or to individual files. This allows the license to be a suitable choice for projects who want to leave the possibility open to be ported to proprietary platforms such as video-game consoles or vehicle displays but still want any extended functionality or bug fixes to be released in source-code form.


The license hasn't gone through any legal review yet as I do not have the required funds to do so and I hope this doesn't block the approval process. I think a license like this is desperately needed by the open source community to address some of the issues behind why licenses such as the Server Side Public License were created. Please let me know if anything is unclear about the license and/or if you believe that it doesn't meet the OSI's definition so that I can take steps to clarify and/or adjust it.




Best Regards,

Quentin Quaadgras
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210211/9a6a6a08/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: License
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6101 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210211/9a6a6a08/attachment.obj>