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

[Pamela Chestek]

While I appreciate the acknowledgement, my email comments on the first 
version were not meant to describe every problem with this license but 
simply were to demonstrate that there were significant problems in the 
first few paragraphs, indicating that undoubtedly the drafting problems 
were throughout. Making changes addressing only my two original 
criticisms doesn't begin to solve all the problems, and in fact the 
changes have made it much worse. Now I don't even see a clear grant of a 
copyright license. This -- "Each Contributor grants a royalty-free, 
perpetual, worldwide license under their copyright ... they own or 
control that are necessarily infringed by their Contributions, but only 
to the extent of the changes they contributed" -- is nonsensical, if 
that's supposed to be the grant.

As Rob Landley points out, this is not a task for the layperson.

Pam

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 2/21/2026 5:28 AM, Timofey Zakharcuk wrote:
> Found a problem in my license, anti tivoization is in the preamble, 
> not the terms.
>
> Although the old LICENSE.txt doesn't work anymore, the website is 
> updated. although, here's the new file, still called v1.0 to prevent 
> "user confusion"
>
> Best,
>
> Timofey Zakharchuk
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 3:53 PM Timofey Zakharcuk 
> <timofey.zakharchuk.research at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I am submitting a revised version of the Open Source Copyleft
>     License (OSCL) v1.0, dated February 21, 2026, for consideration.
>
>
>     This license was not drafted by a lawyer. Instead, it has been
>     developed with respect for and in response to the thoughtful
>     feedback provided by OSI reviewers, including Kevin P. Fleming and
>     Pamela Chestek. Their insights helped identify key areas for
>     improvement, and I am grateful for their time and expertise,
>     honestly, it'd fail on day 1 in not them!
>
>
>     Although the license is named v1.0, I want to note that an earlier
>     draft also used the v1.0 label. I’ve kept the revised version as
>     v1.0 to avoid user confusion (e.g., ‘why is there no v1.0?’). The
>     earlier version was never adopted.
>
>
>     The License is hosted at:
>
>     https://areponian.github.io/oscl.html ( OSCL License – AREPONIAN
>     Project <https://areponian.github.io/oscl.html> )
>
>     It's also in the submitted file LICENSE.txt
>
>
>     Off-topic note: some parts of the website (like the buttons) don’t
>     currently work — it’s in a very “minimal” state right now — but
>     the license text is fully hosted and accessible  .
>
>
>     Key improvements:
>
>      *
>
>         Clearer definitions of Licensor, Contributor, and Derivative Work
>
>      *
>
>         Expanded patent grants applying to Contributors and Distributors
>
>      *
>
>         Explicit anti‑Tivoization protections
>
>      *
>
>         A stewardship clause for future license versions
>
>      *
>
>         One‑way GPL compatibility (OSCL to GPL)
>
>      *
>
>
>      *
>
>         OSCL is philosophically close to the GPL: it emphasizes user
>         freedom and strong copyleft.
>         It includes a preamble about free software and user rights.
>         At the same time, it resembles the MPL in its compatibility model.
>         OSCL allows one-way GPL compatibility (OSCL to GPL), enabling
>         integration without relicensing GPL code.
>
>      *
>
>
>      *
>
>         I welcome further review and discussion, and I am committed to
>         refining OSCL to meet OSI standards.
>
>      *
>
>
>      *
>
>         Best regards, Timofey Zakharchuk
>
>      *
>
>         timofey.zakharchuk.research at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260223/301dc11e/attachment.htm>