[License-review] [License Review] Project Tick General Public License v1.0

[M.samet Duman]

Hello Carlo,

Thank you for sharing this perspective.

Yes, I will withdraw the submission at this stage. I agree that restarting the process once Version 2 is finalized is the right approach, and there is no need to rush formal review.

I also appreciate your personal comments on the direction and intent behind the work. That feedback is valuable and reinforces the need to take more time to refine the language properly.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

Best regards,  
Mehmet Samet Duman
Author of Project Tick

> Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu> şunları yazdı (21 Oca 2026 20:02):
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I refrained from commenting, since there is a lot to unpack. I would personally (not officially) suggest to withdraw the submission. Meanwhile it is good that we have been made aware of the general direction you are taking -- it is some space wanting better language than AGPL with the benefit of hindsight, so it is worth attention and I reckon there is some good effort -- but at the same time we don't rush the process if this is due to restart.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Carlo, in his personal capacity
> 
> Da: "M.samet Duman via License-review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> A: "Kevin P. Fleming" <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us>
> Cc: "M.samet Duman" <dumanmehmetsamet at icloud.com>, "License-review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Mercoledì, 21 gennaio 2026 17:23:32
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] [License Review] Project Tick General Public License v1.0
> Thank you for your honest feedback. It's accurate to say so.
> 
> I should have made it clear from the outset that the text under discussion was a draft and that a revised version was already planned for publication. It was my mistake not to state this from the beginning, and I understand how frustrating that can be in a review context.
> 
> The aim was not to waste reviewers' time, but to verify that the direction of the changes was consistent with the Open Source Definition before publication. However, I fully agree that the correct approach would have been to wait for the text to be finalized or to explicitly label it as a draft in the initial submission.
> 
> Nevertheless, thank you for your time and attention, and I will be more careful about timing and framing in future submissions.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Mehmet Samet Duman
> Author of Project Tick
> 
> Kevin P. Fleming <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us> şunları yazdı (21 Oca 2026 19:12):
> 
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026, at 10:32, M.samet <http://m.samet/> Duman via License-review wrote:
> I wanted to clarify that the license version you reviewed is an earlier draft. The revised Version 2 of the Project Tick General Public License will be released on February 2, 2026, and will explicitly address the concerns you raised.
> 
> Since you didn't mention this in your submission, you've now asked people in this group to review a license which you plan to replace in less than two weeks. This will not make you any friends in the review group, to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260121/9afda55f/attachment.htm>