[License-review] Submission: Open Source Copyleft License (OSCL) v1.0

[Pamela Chestek]

On 2/20/2026 5:37 AM, Kevin P. Fleming via License-review wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026, at 05:12, Timofey Zakharcuk wrote:
>>  I, Timofey Zakharchuk, am the author and proposed steward of the 
>> OSCL, can be contacted at: timofey.zakharchuk.research at gmail.com
>>
>>  OSCL is a strong copyleft license designed to preserve software 
>> freedom  while offering
>> clear definitions of derivative works, linking, and unified works. It 
>> aims to provide a modern alternative to the GPL, while retaining 
>> compatibility with the GNU General Public License. It is intended to 
>> fill the gap between permissive and strong copyleft licenses, for 
>> people who want strong copyleft of the GPL and the file-level 
>> copyleft of MPL at one time, offering freedom and clarity to its users.
>
> As noted in the License Review process page, there are some additional 
> items of information you will need to provide:
>
> # Compare it to and contrast it with the most similar OSI-approved 
> license(s).
> # Describe any legal review the license has been through, including 
> whether it was drafted by a lawyer.
>
>
The clear answer to the second bullet is that no lawyer was involved in 
the drafting of this license. This was evident from the first two lines.

The grant is to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, and distribute the 
Software." This is a very odd assortment of rights granted that don't 
track with copyright or patent law in any jurisdiction. I assume it's 
taken from the MIT license, albeit without "sell copies" and also 
missing the critical "to deal in the Software without restriction," the 
saving language of the MIT license.

The licensing party for the patent rights is the Author, the "original 
creator of the Software." The original creator may not be the one 
granting the license. The original creator may have assigned their 
copyright and patent rights to someone else who is granting the license. 
If so, the assignee is not granting the patent rights since it is the 
Author (who now doesn't have any) who grants the rights to them. The OSI 
has long disapproved licensees that don't, at least implicitly, grant a 
patent license and this one in some situations may not.

The same flaw is in the definition of "Contributor," which refers to the 
Author accepting submissions when the Author may no longer even be 
involved in the project.

I did not go any further because it's clear this license requires 
further work - please don't think that you can fix these two problems 
and the license will be fine, there are many other inconsistencies 
throughout the license.

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260220/74fc09f4/attachment-0001.htm>