<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/23/2025 12:04 AM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:10d4c837-815a-4d1f-961d-c416f1618702@chesteklegal.com"><br>
<p>Section 5.4 is unnecessary. I've never seen it argued that a
project must accept contributions, so saying that you don't have
to in some, or any, circumstance doesn't add anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The whole contribution section really doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>Section 5.2 says "Each Contributor grants the Licensor and
recipients of the Software the licenses described in Sections 2
and 3 for their Contribution." But Section 5.3 says "Optionally,
the Licensor may provide a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) or
Developer Agreement for signature; signing such an agreement is
not mandatory to contribute but may be required by the project for
administrative or corporate compliance reasons."</p>
<p>What happens if the terms of the 5.3 contribution agreement are
narrower, or broader, than the automatic contribution terms in
5.2? Which terms govern the contribution? Also, if the CLA of 5.3
is not mandatory to contribute, what's the point in addressing it
in this license?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Also, the requirements for approval are that you:<br>
</p>
<ul class="wp-block-list"
style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; border: 0px; font-family: "Libre Franklin", sans-serif, sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-size: 19.8061px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.1em; margin: 0px 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px 0px 0px 1em; max-width: 730px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<li
style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-size: 19.8061px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">Describe
what gap not filled by currently existing licenses that the new
license will fill.</li>
<li
style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-size: 19.8061px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">Compare
it to and contrast it with the most similar OSI-approved
license(s).</li>
<li
style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-style: normal; font-size: 19.8061px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0.3em 0px 1em; padding: 0px;">Describe
any legal review the license has been through, including whether
it was drafted by a lawyer.</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm not sure any of these have been done (there certainly isn't
any discussion of legal review); there is a mention of this
license being somewhat based on Apache-2.0 or perhaps MIT or
perhaps both and it seems to borrow some of the text of those
licenses, but it's not clear to me what gap this license fills
over that license (other than the various non-mandatory portions
already commented upon) and how it differs and contrasts with that
license. I tried to do a redline compare of OSN vs Apache 2.0 and
didn't see a whole lot that was reproduced.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>