<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I appreciate your effort and intention, but the license is poorly
drafted which leads to interpretation problems. The license approval
requirements say that "The license must be grammatically and
syntactically clear to a speaker of the language of the license" and
"Every possible variation of the application of the license must
meet the OSD." This license does not meet those requirements. <br>
<br>
The license is not grammatically and syntactically clear. You
mention that it's shorter and simpler than the Apache license, but
shorter and simpler isn't necessarily better. For example, the
Apache license defines "Contributions" as "including the original
version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work
or Derivative Works." Your license uses the word "contributions" but
does not define it. This ambiguity led to McCoy's comment that
"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.”)." <br>
<br>
As another example, your section 3 says "You must disclose the
source, and retain the licensing, ad verbum, in the source form."
The word "source" is used to mean two different things, the origin
of the code/owner of the copyright and the source [code]. This
overloaded use of a word can creates interpretation problems. <br>
<br>
Section 5 says "The license may not be modified other than the
addition of clauses (also known as sublicensing)." "Clause" and
"sublicense" are not synonyms, so I don't know what you mean here.
Is your intention to allow sublicensing? If so, that should be with
the rest of the grants at the beginning.<br>
<br>
The license also does not meet the OSD in every possible variation.
Section 5 allows "modification of the marked boilerplate components
of the license" - there are no marked boilerplate components of the
license, so its unclear whether these permitted modifications might
alter significant terms of the license. That section also allows
"the maintainer of the origin, the removal of clauses." As pointed
out by McCoy, this means that the license could be change from
OSD-compliant to non-compliant at any moment.<br>
<br>
For these reasons, I do not believe that this license should be
approved.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal
capacity)<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville Street<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/19/2023 1:06 PM, Not An FBI Agent
via License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3243a6456196a5894931f86ca707790f@fbi.ac">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>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>Zeppelin Public
License</em><em> Version 1.0</em>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Thank you!</p>
<div id="signature">-- <br>
<p><strong><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif;">Not
A Federal Agent</span></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><span style="font-family:
georgia, palatino, serif;">No seriously, I'm not a fed</span></span></p>
<hr>
<p><span style="font-family: georgia, palatino, serif;
font-size: 8pt;"><a href="mailto:totallynotafed@fbi.ac"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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
<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>