[License-review] License Review: IDCIYMI-1.0 (I Don't Care If You Mod It)

Fri Jan 16 23:24:58 UTC 2026

One requirement for approval of new licenses is:

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

I don't see that that has been done here.

This is particularly important in this case because you state that the 
"Creator Note" is intended to be a "standardized, non-binding 
(non-legal) field" but you have not explained how the language used here 
creates that effect, or how it prevents the "Creator Note" from being 
written to be binding and OSD-incompliant.

Absent that, I don't see how there is any way to establish that this 
license is not amenable to being modified, according to its terms, in a 
way that violates the OSD.

On 1/16/2026 3:36 AM, PTFS wrote:
> Dear  Carlo,
> Thank you for your candid and professional feedback. I understand your 
> concerns regarding license proliferation and the legal nuances of the 
> MIT structure.
> To be clear, the reason it's confusing to read is because I 
> have Autism and ADHD, which means that when I tell people stuff in a 
> different way.
> 1. Regarding Sublicensing:
> The removal of the sub licensing clause was an attempt at 
> simplification, but I acknowledge that it creates legal ambiguity. I 
> will restore the standard MIT language ("and to permit persons to whom 
> the Software is furnished to do so...") to ensure full legal 
> compatibility and clarity for downstream users.
> 2. Rationale and Proliferation:
> I hear your invitation not to create "entropy." However, I believe 
> IDCIYMI addresses a specific social gap in 2026. While the legal core 
> is MIT, the "Creator Note" is intended to be a standardized, 
> non-binding (non-legal) field. In current practice, creator intent is 
> scattered across READMEs and NOTICE files in inconsistent ways. 
> IDCIYMI aims to provide a formal, predictable "home" for this 
> aspirational language without altering the legal conditions of the 
> license itself.
> 3. Clarifying Aspirational Language:
> To avoid the "confusion" you mentioned, I will add a clear prefix to 
> the section stating: /"The following Creator Note is for informational 
> purposes only and does not constitute a legal condition of this license."/
> I am a beginner developer (Bernardo Hora) passionate about modding 
> culture. My goal is to lower the "fear of entry" for new modders who 
> find traditional legal text intimidating. I am open to further 
> adjusting the text to ensure it provides value to the ecosystem 
> without wasting the community's time.
> Best regards,
> Bernardo Hora
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 11:10 AM Carlo Piana via License-review 
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>     Dear Bernardo,
>
>     I notice that the most relevant change to the MIT is the removal
>     of the
>
>     > and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
>     so, subject to the following conditions
>
>     part. This is the "sublicensing" permission. I am not sure a
>     sublicensing permission is required, since the later users of the
>     software can derive this permission from the original licensing,
>     however they would receive the software, without the need to
>     receive it as an effect of the last distribution. But I don't
>     quite get the rationale of having a new MIT-style license which
>     leaves this implicit. Has a lawyer performed any kind of
>     assessment here? Why?
>
>     Moreover, the addition of aspirational language in legal text,
>     especially without a clear indication that this is not legal text,
>     is IMHO a source of potentially confusing language, and is for
>     sure an invitation to create more proliferation and entropy. Have
>     you have ever tried to perform an OSS compliance audit on any
>     piece of software only to find the umpteenth license to clear for
>     no reason at all, but nonetheless requiring human intervention --
>     as it is slightly different from allo others? This is a total
>     waste of time and energy and I personally invite all submitters
>     NOT to do that unless there are really compelling legal reasons,
>     or proof of widespread adoption, both totally absent here.
>
>     I take the view that this license does not meet the requirements
>     for being added to the list of officially approved licenses,
>     although per se does not seem to violate any OSD rule, at a
>     cursory evaluation.
>
>     Cheers
>
>     Carlo, in his personal capacity.
>
>
>
>
>     ----- Messaggio originale -----
>     > Da: "PTFS" <pfts.offical at gmail.com>
>     > A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org"
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     > Inviato: Sabato, 10 gennaio 2026 14:14:18
>     > Oggetto: [License-review] License Review: IDCIYMI-1.0 (I Don't
>     Care If You Mod It)
>
>     > Dear OSI License Review Committee,
>     > I am formally submitting the "I Don't Care If You Mod It"
>     (IDCIYMI) license,
>     > version 1.0, for official approval as an Open Source license.
>
>     >     1. License Text
>
>     > ========================================================
>     > IDCIYMI License (I Don't Care If You Mod It)
>     > Copyright (c) 2026 [Name]
>     > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
>     obtaining a copy
>     > of this software and associated documentation files (the
>     "Software"), to deal
>     > in the Software without restriction, including without
>     limitation the rights
>     > to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
>     and/or sell
>     > copies of the Software.
>     > The only condition is that the above copyright notice and this
>     permission
>     > notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions
>     of the Software.
>     > CREATOR NOTE:
>     > [Add your note here. For example: "I built this for the
>     community—please mod it
>     > and share what you create!"]
>     > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
>     EXPRESS OR
>     > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
>     MERCHANTABILITY,
>     > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO
>     EVENT SHALL THE
>     > AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
>     OTHER
>     > LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
>     ARISING FROM,
>     > OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE.
>     > ==============================================
>
>     >    1. Rationale The IDCIYMI license fills a unique social gap by
>     standardizing a
>     >    "Creator Note" field within a permissive legal framework.
>     While legally similar
>     >    to MIT, it provides a dedicated space for authors to express
>     their intent and
>     >    encouragement for modifications without introducing legally
>     binding
>     >    restrictions that would violate the OSD. This fosters a
>     culture of remixing and
>     >     open collaboration.
>     >    2. Open Source Definition (OSD) Affirmation I affirmatively
>     state that this
>     >     license complies with the Open Source Definition. Specifically:
>
>     >     *
>     > OSD 3 (Derived Works): It explicitly permits modifications and
>     sublicensing.
>     >    * OSD 5 & 6 (No Discrimination): The license and its "Creator
>     Note" are
>     >     structured to ensure no groups or fields of endeavor are
>     restricted.
>     >    * OSD 9 (License Must Not Restrict Other Software): It does
>     not restrict other
>     >     software distributed with it.
>
>     >     1.
>     > Stewardship I, Bernardo Hora, am the steward of this license.
>     >    2. Existing Usage Since I do not use GitHub, the license and
>     the software using
>     >     it can be found at the following public locations:
>
>     > site : [ https://idciymi.neocities.org/ |
>     https://idciymi.neocities.org/ ] (the
>     > site is in wip)
>
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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/20260116/dec15893/attachment-0001.htm>