[License-review] New License for review: ADVPL 1.0

[McCoy Smith]

The license review process requires several things which it doesn't look 
like you've done here, which includes the following:

"Describe any legal review the license has been through, including 
whether it was drafted by a lawyer."

https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process

You probably should withdraw this request and follow the process as 
written on that site if you are seeking approval. I'm particularly 
interested in the answer to "Describe what gap not filled by currently 
existing licenses that the new license will fill."

Citing JSON and Hippocratic in support of your submission is probably 
not a good idea, as those licenses are not OSI approved. Nor, likely 
would they (OSI did tweet about the Hippocratic but I don't believe it 
was ever submitted for approval to OSI: 
https://x.com/OpenSourceOrg/status/1176229398929977344).


On 9/5/2024 9:09 AM, Ω Alisson wrote:
> The conditions having nothing to do with software is debatable. There 
> are examples like the JSON License 
> <https://www.json.org/license.html> (The Software shall be used for 
> Good, not Evil), the Hippocratic License 
> <https://firstdonoharm.dev/> (probably not OSI-compliant, but in the 
> same ethical vein).
>
> By the License Review Process, is lawyer consultancy obligatory or 
> just the mentioning of it?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 12:58 PM Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu> wrote:
>
>     Dear Alisson,
>
>     you purport to have added "conditions", but in fact you have added
>     general aspirational staments which technically do not consist of
>     conditions. Therefore, the grant is conditioned to conditions
>     which are not conditions and that have nothing to do with the
>     interaction with software. At best, it is matter that would belong
>     in a preamble. Please consider this as a technical remark, not as
>     a remark on the principles (with which I seem to agree, but it's
>     immaterial).
>
>     In addition, I think this submission does not fully comply with
>     the submission guidelines. I doubt a lawyer has laid their eyes on
>     this text and I can't find any such indication.
>
>     The conclusion IMHO should be "rejection".
>
>     With best regards,
>
>     Carlo (in his own personal capacity)
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         *Da: *"Ω Alisson" <thelinuxlich at gmail.com>
>         *A: *"license-review at lists.opensource.org"
>         <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>         *Inviato: *Mercoledì, 4 settembre 2024 18:45:50
>         *Oggetto: *[License-review] New License for review: ADVPL 1.0
>
>         In accordance with the License Review Process
>         <http://opensource.org/approval>, I'd like to submit for
>         review the Adversary Public License 1.0 (ADVPL), which is
>         composed of the MIT license text + 7 tenets from the Temple of
>         Satan. It complies with all terms of the Open Source
>         Definition, the suggested tag is ADVPL. Currently no
>         significant projects use it, although there is intent once
>         it's approved.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender
>         and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative.
>         Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent
>         from an opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
>         License-review mailing list
>         License-review at lists.opensource.org
>         http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
>     not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication
>     from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
>     opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at lists.opensource.org
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> 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/20240905/604d597d/attachment.htm>