<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">From: Wayne A Rangel <<a href="mailto:waynerangelboy@gmail.com" class="">waynerangelboy@gmail.com</a>></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Master-Console's Open-Source Definitive License is for a whole purpose of<br class="">open-source projects<br class="">out there. Master-Console Inc.(<a href="https://master-console-inc.tk" class="">https://master-console-inc.tk</a>) is the owner<br class="">of this license and founded this license as other licenses out there like<br class="">Apache License or GPL were not actually compatible for security reasons the<br class="">project was working on, therefore we casted a custom license which would</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">not only help ourselves but the millions of open-source projects out there<br class="">but it can't be done without proper approval and verification, then only it<br class="">can seem for the license to help and people using it would think so.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></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 class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">This<br class="">license was created with similarity to some popular licenses and with<br class="">essential security features which those licenses lacked like prevention of<br class="">transcripted use. Transcripted use means which reveals the source publicly<br class="">but does not let users access actual content, download and verify the<br class="">integrity of the project, thus harming the open-source terms. An example<br class="">could be this: <a href="https://www.androwish.org/index.html/tree?ci=tip" class="">https://www.androwish.org/index.html/tree?ci=tip</a> which does<br class="">let access to view but does not let access to part of the original source<br class="">in it and forcibly acts to download all the source.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></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="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); 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);" class="">fossil clone <a href="http://anonymous:www.androwish.org" class="">http://anonymous:www.androwish.org</a> androwish.fossil</span></div><div class=""><br class=""></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 class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> "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 class=""> 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 class=""> mean the one who firstly licensed and published the product.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></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 class=""></div><div>Sean</div><div> </div></div></div></body></html>