[License-review] [SUBMISSION] CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0 (CNPL-1.0)

Sat Apr 18 12:47:33 UTC 2026

I have the following comments on the license:

OSI will not approve licenses where the title refers to a particular 
person, entity or software or that have them "hard coded" into the 
license (see "Standard for New Licenses" para. 1, 
https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process). For this reason, the 
license name and the text of the license cannot include "CompanionNation."

The license does not grant all the rights under copyright, at least 
under US law. US law also includes the right to publicly perform and 
publicly display. This matters because, as an example, use in SaaS might 
be considered a public performance or display of the software. That 
said, it is also better practice not to define the the grant by 
enumerating specific rights, since those may be country-specific, and 
instead state more generally that all necessary rights have been granted 
subject to the conditions of the license.

The definition of "Software" is ambiguous. It is defined as software 
that "includ[es] any modifications or derivative works." This "or" 
statement suggests that modifications are different from derivative 
works, but there is no description or definition of a "modification." 
This matters because in the grant clause in some places you have granted 
the right to make derivative works but not modifications. For this 
reason too you have not necessarily granted all rights under copyright.

You say that the license is a "simple permissive license," but the 
definition of "Software" can lead to a conclusion that it is a copyleft 
license.  If I modify the "Software," and "Software" includes "any 
modifications or derivative works," are my modifications now subject to 
this license?

Also, the possibility that "modifications" that are not within the scope 
of copyright may nevertheless become subject to the license may violate 
OSD 9.

You have overstated what you perceive to be one flaw with the Apache 
license, which is that the Apache license "imposes a NOTICE file 
requirement." It is true that IF a notice file exists there are 
obligations for others to provide it, but there is no duty for the 
original licensor to include a NOTICE file ("*/If /*the Work includes a 
'NOTICE' text file as part of its distribution ..."). You can avoid the 
complexity of the NOTICE file requirement by not including one.

You also say that a flaw of the MIT license is that it "requires 
retention of the copyright notice and permission notice only," 
suggesting that a copy of the license is not required. That is not 
accurate; the "permission notice" that you mention must be provided 
*/IS/* the license.  Thus, the gap that you claim exists between your 
proposed license and the MIT and Apache licenses is not as broad as you 
claim.

Please also note, per the license review guidelines, "a license cannot 
be changed while it is being considered. If the license submitter would 
like to change the language of the license, the current version of the 
license should be withdrawn from review and an updated version 
submitted. We recommend that, if changes are going to be made, that the 
license submitter wait and collect all the desired changes in a single 
new submission rather than withdrawing and resubmitting the same license 
several times."

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

On 4/17/2026 6:22 AM, Drew McPherson wrote:
> To the license-review list,
>
> I am submitting the CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0 
> (CNPL-1.0) for OSI approval. I am the author and license steward.
>
> License steward and submitter:
>   Drew McPherson (DrewZero®)
> drew.mcpherson at gmail.com
>
> The full license text is attached as plain text.
>
> ---
>
> ## 1. Unique name and identifier
>
> CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0
> Proposed SPDX identifier: CNPL-1.0
>
> Note: I am aware that CPL-1.0 is already registered (IBM Common Public 
> License). CNPL-1.0 is intentionally distinct.
>
> ---
>
> ## 2. OSD compliance affirmations
>
> I affirm that CNPL-1.0 complies with the Open Source Definition. 
> Specifically:
>
> - OSD §3 (Derived Works): Section 2 grants unrestricted rights to 
> prepare and distribute derivative works. ✓
> - OSD §5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups): The license 
> places no restrictions on any person or group. ✓
> - OSD §6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor): The license 
> explicitly permits commercial use, SaaS deployment, and any other 
> purpose. ✓
> - OSD §9 (License Must Not Restrict Other Software): The license 
> contains no such restriction. ✓
>
> Full OSD mapping:
>
> §1 Free Redistribution — Sections 2 and 3 grant unconditional 
> redistribution rights with no royalty. ✓
> §2 Source Code — The license imposes no source-withholding restriction. ✓
> §3 Derived Works — See above. ✓
> §4 Integrity of Author's Source Code — No patch-file or name-change 
> restriction is imposed. ✓
> §5 No Discrimination — See above. ✓
> §6 No Field Restriction — See above. ✓
> §7 Distribution of License — Rights apply to all downstream recipients 
> automatically. ✓
> §8 Not Specific to a Product — Section 1 defines "Software" 
> generically; no product dependency. ✓
> §9 No Restriction on Other Software — See above. ✓
> §10 Technology Neutral — No technology-specific provision exists. ✓
>
> ---
>
> ## 3. Projects using this license
>
> CNPL-1.0 is a new license. It is currently in use by one project:
>
>   CompanioNation™ — an open-source online dating platform
> https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core
>
> ---
>
> ## 4. Gap not filled by existing licenses
>
> CNPL-1.0 is a simple permissive license with two features not combined 
> in any single currently approved license:
>
> a) An explicit, broad patent grant (as in Apache 2.0) combined with 
> permissive, copyleft-free terms (as in MIT). The MIT License contains 
> no patent grant. Apache 2.0 contains one, but also imposes a NOTICE 
> file requirement and has considerably more complexity.
>
> b) A redistribution condition requiring the complete license text (not 
> merely a copyright notice) to be retained. This ensures downstream 
> recipients always receive the full grant of rights — including the 
> patent licence — rather than just a copyright attribution line that 
> may be stripped of legal context.
>
> The intent is a license that is as simple as MIT, but legally 
> complete: explicit patent grant, full-text redistribution, and no 
> overhead.
>
> ---
>
> ## 5. Comparison to similar approved licenses
>
> Most similar: MIT License
> - Both are permissive, copyleft-free, and impose minimal conditions.
> - MIT requires retention of the copyright notice and permission notice 
> only. CNPL-1.0 requires retention of the complete license text.
> - MIT contains no patent grant. CNPL-1.0 includes an explicit patent 
> grant with a litigation termination clause.
>
> Also comparable: Apache License 2.0
> - Both include explicit patent grants with litigation termination.
> - Apache 2.0 requires a NOTICE file, tracks modifications, and is 
> substantially longer. CNPL-1.0 imposes none of those requirements.
> - Apache 2.0 is permissive but complex. CNPL-1.0 is intentionally minimal.
>
> In short: CNPL-1.0 occupies the space between MIT (no patent grant, 
> notice-only) and Apache 2.0 (patent grant, significant overhead).
>
> ---
>
> ## 6. Legal review
>
> The license was drafted by the submitter, who is not a lawyer. No 
> formal legal review has been conducted. I welcome scrutiny of the text 
> on this list.
>
> ---
>
> ## 7. Proposed tags
>
> Permissive, Patent-Grant, Simple
>
> ---
>
> The license text is attached. I have subscribed to license-review and 
> will be attentive and responsive to discussion.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Drew McPherson
> License Steward, CNPL-1.0
> drew.mcpherson at gmail.com
> https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260418/8d7ed7a7/attachment.htm>