<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Georgia;
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The text of this license, and the rationale for it, are quite confusing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>You’ve stated you want it to “fill the hole between permissive and weak-copyleft” but also that it is “a little bit more permissive” than the Apache license. Those two statements are mutually inconsistent (if it is intended to be somewhat weak-copyleft, it would be less “permissive” than Apache, assuming you’re using “permissive” as meaning “non-copyleft”).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Also, you contrast this with Apache (I assume in answer to the question of “Compare it to and contrast it with the most similar OSI-approved license(s)”) per the approval process requirements, but this license looks to be a variant of BSD-3.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>There are parts of this license that potentially violate the OSD (or are drafted in an unclear way in which they could be interpreted to violate the OSD), including the requirement that “any contributions shall be licensed to the terms of the license.” I suspect this is intended to capture derivative works or the like, but contributions could be separately copyrightable, and not a derivative work, and thus this provision would violate OSD 9 (“The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software.”)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Sections 1 & 3 are also mutually contradictory, at least with respect to binaries, as Section 1 appears to require “contributions” to be licensed under the Zepplin license but Section 3 says that “You <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>are not required to disclose the license in the binary form of the software.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Section 5 is poorly drafted and inaccurate (“the addition of clauses (also known as sublicensing)” “modification of the marked boilerplate components of the license”), and also potentially allows the license steward to change the terms of this license after-the-fact (“if the maintainer of the origin, the removal of clauses”) to make it non-OSD compliant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I know you say you can’t get a lawyer because of your age, but this one could really use lawyer input to make it clearer and to address the goals for this license, although I’d suggest first you might want to make clearer what the goals are here since at least in the first submission they aren’t clear and are mutually contradictory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Not An FBI Agent via License-review<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 19, 2023 10:06 AM<br><b>To:</b> license-review@lists.opensource.org<br><b>Cc:</b> Not An FBI Agent <totallynotafed@fbi.ac><br><b>Subject:</b> [License-review] Review: Zeppelin Public License<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Hello! I made my own license that I wish to submit for review. I have submitted the license in a text file on the e-mail, and it complies with the open-source standards. No projects currently use it other than the projects that I am currently making, which are in private GitHub repositories. I am also the license steward. The name of the license is <em><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Zeppelin Public License Version 1.0</span></em>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>The gap that the project is to fill the hole between permissive and weak-copyleft, as I believe that while both are good, I prefer something in the middle. I believe that the most similar license to the Zeppelin Public License is the Apache License, and comparing and contrasting it shows that both the Apache License and the Zeppelin Public Licenses are permissive, both support the open-source movement, both support the rights of software creators, both support the rights of users, and both support the rights of derivative works. Some differences are that the Apache is extremely verbose whilst the Zeppelin Public License is shorter and simpler, as well as being a little bit more permissive. Unfortunately, due to my age, I could not get a lawyer to review the license, however after reading it a dozen of times, it seems legally plausible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Thank you!<o:p></o:p></span></p><div id=signature><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>-- <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif'>Not A Federal Agent</span></strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif'>No seriously, I'm not a fed</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Georgia",serif'><a href="mailto:totallynotafed@fbi.ac">totallynotafed@fbi.ac</a> is not a federal agent, nor is related to any federal agencies. Any similarities to real feds are purely coincidental</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>