<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
HI Wayne,<br>
<br>
Thank you for submitting the license. I agree with the others who
have commented; the license is quite difficult to understand because
of the misuse of many English words and grammatical errors. There
are also writing techniques and conventions that make a licenses
clearer and more predictably applied that are absent from this
license.<br>
<br>
Then, because of the difficulty of the text, I cannot work on
understanding the licensing concepts you are proposing.<br>
<br>
I suggest that you withdraw the license for now because of the
further work that is needed. I would also suggest starting a thread
on license-discuss (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>) about the
concepts that you would like to employ, to get feedback on whether
they would be acceptable for an approved license. If after
discussion it appears that the OSI might approve a license of the
type you propose, you can get assistance with conveying the concepts
more clearly in a legal document and resubmitting the revised
version.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela Chestek
<br>
Chair, License Review Committee
<br>
Open Source Initiative</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 5/27/2019 9:18 AM, Wayne A Rangel wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ2s1EvmucO_6Zf1JhR7uEBN3PKzyEnEsPEQLJE5nB4XFLkrvg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">This license does not include stating sources like
tcl that are licensed with BSD like license to be within or
followed with this, We showed an example site and we are not
talking about AndroWish(we are
<div>talking in General) which could not be different from what
you talk about. Yes, you are right, accessible from fossil,
but not accessible from within web, within a normal static
browser(transcripted use), it does not necessarily mean its
should be in a repository or in a page. It should be
accessible as raw data(can be in any interface and doesn't
mean anyone can come and edit the raw data but should be
accessible). And thanks for figuring out the grammatical
errors. We will fix it soon.<br>
<br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 18:26,
Christopher Sean Morrison via License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div dir="auto" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>From: Wayne A Rangel <<a
href="mailto:waynerangelboy@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">waynerangelboy@gmail.com</a>></div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Master-Console's Open-Source Definitive License
is for a whole purpose of<br>
open-source projects<br>
out there. Master-Console Inc.(<a
href="https://master-console-inc.tk"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://master-console-inc.tk</a>)
is the owner<br>
of this license and founded this license as other
licenses out there like<br>
Apache License or GPL were not actually compatible
for security reasons the<br>
project was working on, therefore we casted a
custom license which would</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>not only help ourselves but the millions of
open-source projects out there<br>
but it can't be done without proper approval and
verification, then only it<br>
can seem for the license to help and people using
it would think so.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be
conflating your desire that some 3rd party had chosen
a different Open Source license with the need for a
different Open Source license to exist. The
“transcripted use” example that you provide seems to
be such a case, and a poor one at that because the
Tcl/Tk license is very permissive.</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>This<br>
license was created with similarity to some
popular licenses and with<br>
essential security features which those licenses
lacked like prevention of<br>
transcripted use. Transcripted use means which
reveals the source publicly<br>
but does not let users access actual content,
download and verify the<br>
integrity of the project, thus harming the
open-source terms. An example<br>
could be this: <a
href="https://www.androwish.org/index.html/tree?ci=tip"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.androwish.org/index.html/tree?ci=tip</a>
which does<br>
let access to view but does not let access to part
of the original source<br>
in it and forcibly acts to download all the
source.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I fail to see where there is denied access to any
part of the original source to AndroWish. It’s in a
Fossil repository which can be publicly cloned: <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Dejavu Sans Mono",Monaco,"Lucida Console",monospace;font-size:0.9em;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(243,243,243)">fossil clone <a href="http://anonymous:www.androwish.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://anonymous:www.androwish.org</a> androwish.fossil</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
Even if it were not in a public repository and even if
source were not provided, they'd still be in full
compliance with the original Tcl/Tk license terms — the
license only requires they include a verbatim copy of
the license in any distributions. Is there some
distribution of AndroWish that does not provide the
license terms? </div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div> "Creator" shall mean the one who has all the
copyright owns of one' own product who can
license, unlicense or change the circumstances to
comply<br>
with this product but not the
definitions of this license. The Creator does not
mean the one who has created the product, it only
does<br>
mean the one who firstly licensed and
published the product.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I must admit that I stopped reading the license at
this point. There are many grammatical and other
errors throughout the document, such as using “owns”
as a noun, that should be grounds for rejection alone.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sean</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>