<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi McCoy,<div><br></div><div>Thanks your feedback.</div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 15 May 2025, at 4:47\u202fAM, McCoy Smith <mccoy@lexpan.law> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><p>One concern that I have with this license is the nomenclature.
"Zero" or "-0" with open source licensing typically means
something akin to public domain or at least a license that imposes
no (i.e., "zero") obligations on the recipient of the license.</p><p>The latest draft of this license does impose at least one
obligation: in Section 2.2(a)(i) the licensee is obligated to pass
along a copy of the license with any distribution.</p><p>Some people may not find this a big deal and relatively easy to
comply with (particularly if/when this gets into SPDX), but there
has been for quite some time a contention (which a recent informal
poll I did at an event had surprisingly high traction) that that
sort of condition (which is in BSD & MIT) causes any code upon
which that license is attached to be perpetually under that
license's terms. That's not really a -0 license.</p><p>I'd suggest that at a minimum, either Section 2.2(a)(i) be
removed to make it a true -0 license, or this license have a
different name attached to it ("permissive"? although there are
those object to the use of that term for only non-copyleft
licenses; "non-reciprocal"?).</p></div></div></blockquote><div>I will consult my legal assistant regarding these concerns. I see no harm in making MG0 less burdensome, as it is intended to be highly permissive. However, I do not agree that encouraging users to remove the license file sends a responsible signal. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>In terms of drafting, I dislike the articulation of the license
grant here as it uses various license permissions in a way that is
inconsistent with the rights the various intellectual property
regimes articulate them, but more importantly, leaves out quite a
number of them. This is in part the fault of using older licenses
(BSD, I think) as a starting model.</p><p>In the USA, the copyright permissions are: reproduce, distribute,
prepare derivative works, display<br>
</p><p>Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are (via Berne):
reproduce, broadcast, communicate, adapt, arrange, recite,
translate<br>
</p><p>In the USA, the patent permissions are: make, use, sell, offer
for sale, import.</p><p>Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are similar in scope,
but sometimes use dispose or other language rather than the above.</p><p>This license only grants the following rights under both
copyright and patent: use, reproduce, distribute. and "use the
Licensed Materials to create Derivative Materials." That means it
leaves out 5 of the 6 enumerated patent rights in the USA. I think
that newer licenses ought to be more rigorous in the way they
articulate their permissions lest a court (or a licensor) argue
that certain rights were reserved or not granted (such as, for
example, the right to sell, offer for sale, or import the software
under patents. I understand there are precedents from prior
licenses (BSD is the best example) for not fully articulating all
of these rights, but I think that precedent shouldn't be used to
allow for incompletely written licenses now.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Thanks for pointing that out. I\u2019ll need to verify it with my legal assistant. Please note that the definition of \u201cDistribution\u201d may already cover some of the copyright permissions you mentioned.</div><div><br></div><div>\u201cDistribution\u201d (or \u201cDistribute\u201d) means any transmission, publication, public performance, sharing, or other methods of marking the Licensed Materials, Derivative Materials and/or Output available to a third party, including providing the Licensed Materials or any part thereof as a hosted service or remotely accessible service, such as API-based access or web access.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>Finally, the termination provision for patent assertions applies
to Derivative Works. There's a long-standing debate about whether
that sort of termination is overbroad, particularly as it prevents
the assertion of patents against downstream modifiers of the
upstream licensor's patents covering subsequent modification out
of the control of the licensor. One of the reasons why the newer,
popular licenses articulate their defensive termination/suspension
clauses more narrowly than this is because of the concern that
patent holders would be reluctant to grant an open-ended patent
license to downstream licensees. I don't think that's an OSD
violation, but it is an issue as to whether a license of this
scope would gain significant uptake at least from patent holders.</p></div></div></blockquote><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I\u2019m </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">not </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">lawyer, </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">so </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">it\u2019s </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">difficult </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">me </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">comment </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">on </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">this </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">point. </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Shuji </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">also </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">raised </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">similar </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">concerns </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">earlier. </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I\u2019d </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">prefer </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">to </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">share </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">feedback </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">from </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">my </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">legal </span><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">assistant, thanks.</span></div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The OSI feedback suggests that the termination provision may be overbroad, as it \u201cprevents the assertion of patents against downstream modifiers of the upstream licensor\u2019s patents covering subsequent modification out of the control of the licensor\u201d. I\u2019m not quite sure why this is an issue \u2013 preventing the assertion of patents against downstream modifiers/users is to prevent a "patent trap\u201d. I\u2019m also unsure why the original termination provision raises this issue at all.</span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In my understanding, a \u201cpatent trap\u201d in open-source software typically refers to a situation where a Licensor (eg Microsoft) releases source code under an open-source license, but simultaneously holds patent rights in the same source code. The open-source license invites users to use the code (inviting users into a \u2019trap\u2019), but the Licensor may still enforce its patent rights (ie activation of the patent trap). Even where a Licensor \u201cpromises\u201d not to enforce its patents against users of the source code (for example<a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dotnet/corefx/master/PATENTS.TXT" target="_blank"> Microsoft\u2019s Patent Promise for .NET</a>), this promise may not be effective/enforceable (especially if the Licensor transfers or sells the patent to someone else). <strong>The OSI feedback refers to \u201cthe assertion of patents against downstream modifiers of the upstream Licensor\u2019s patents\u201d \u2013 this, to me, describes a situation where the Licensor sues the Licensee for infringement of the Licensor\u2019s patent.</strong></span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In the original MG-BY, the termination provision 5.2 provides that \u201cThe Licensor may terminate this License if\u2026 You commence any legal action against the Licensor alleging that the Licensed Materials and/or Derivative Materials infringe any Intellectual Property Rights in the world\u201d. <strong>In other words, this clause envisions a situation where the Licensee (user) sues the Licensor (author) (ie flipped)</strong>, alleging that the Licensed Materials/Derivative Materials infringe IP rights. This (presumably) protects against the situation where the Licensor releases source code under copyright, but then the Licensee (downstream user) patents a method/idea in the source code, and then sues the Licensor. In any case, although it is <em>technically</em> possible for a Licensee (downstream user) to patent a method/idea in the source code, a requirement of patentability is that the invention must be \u2019novel\u2019. Typically, prior publication of the invention means that it is no longer patentable. In other words, the publication of source code under an open-source license will itself prevent any downstream user from later applying for a patent based on the source code. In other words, this situation is unlikely to be significant, and this clause is simply more safeguarding for the Licensor.</span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div></div><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">In any case, the OSI feedback suggests that "the newer, popular licenses articulate their defensive termination/suspension clauses more narrowly\u2026 because\u2026 patent holders would be reluctant to grant an open-ended patent license to downstream licensees\u2026 it is an issue as to whether a license of this scope would gain significant uptake at least from patent holders\u201d. I think this is a strategic decision \u2013 <em>who</em> does the MG licenses target? OSI is concerned with \u201csignificant uptake\u2026 from patent holders\u201d, but patent holders are likely to be larger companies with the resources to file for patents and obtain legal advice on their IP rights. Would such patent holders be likely to use a template license, or would they have a bespoke license? My view is that MG licenses seem to be more akin to the general purpose licenses like MIT/GPL/Apache 2.0, and we might not need to be too concerned with uptake from patent holders.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br></span></div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Best,</span></div><div><span class="_fadeIn_m1hgl_8" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Moming</span></div><div><br></div><br></div></body></html>