<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>here's what a compare looks like.</p>
<p>There's mostly just a lot of just moving around language without
substantive change.</p>
<p>The only substantive changes I see are:<br>
</p>
<p>1. A statement that "obtaining, using or copying the Software"
constitutes acceptance of its terms. I'm not sure whether simply
"obtaining" can be something that triggers a contractual
acceptance.</p>
<p>2. Defining Licensor, although only in the singular, as the
creator, not any subsequent modifiers/copyright holders. This
makes the obligations discriminatory as the prohibition of using
the "Licensor"s name would only apply to the original author, not
any subsequent author. Same applies to the disclaimers -- applies
only to Licensor/original author, not any subsequent author, so is
discriminatory. Thus violates OSD 5.</p>
<p>As noted, the ellipsis is ambiguous and not correct or good legal
drafting. I think any future submission would need to indicate a
legal review has been done, and by whom, in view of this.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/22/2025 6:23 AM, Carlo Piana via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>Pam, Misty,</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>this was also my immediate reaction. Why another MIT-style
license [0], the hundredth or so?</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>Also, even for someone who has not has not bothered reading the
review process requirements, a brief of introduction to oneself
and a signature of a real person representing the entity would
probably be a modicum of courtesy required in all kinds of
communication, including this one.</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>The lack of quality in the licensing text itself is also
apparent, never mind the absolute lack of the necessary
information accompanying the submission.</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>EG, the grant says " distribute the Software \u2026free of charge".
One wonders what's the ellipsis for, whether "free of charge"
refers to the distribution right, the entirety of rights or,
conversely, the permission. If it's a condition as in "distribute
but only free of charge", this would be an incompatible limitation
with #1 (The license shall not restrict any party from *selling*
or giving away the software [...]") and probably #6. </div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>I would advise to withdraw the submission and reconsider the
entire process, and most of all please consider the option to
adopt one of the many similar already approved licenses, on
non-proliferation grounds. </div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>All the best,</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>Carlo, in his personal capacity.</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div><br data-mce-bogus="1">
</div>
<div>[0] my personal AI-based license analysis tool gives 84%
overlapping with MIT; the non overlapping part is the one that
probably would create more problems.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__">
<div data-marker="__HEADERS__">
<blockquote><b>Da: </b>"Pamela Chestek"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"><pamela@chesteklegal.com></a><br>
<b>A: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">"license-review@lists.opensource.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"><license-review@lists.opensource.org></a><br>
<b>Inviato: </b>Lunedė, 22 dicembre 2025 0:21:08<br>
<b>Oggetto: </b>Re: [License-review] Approval of my own
License,Misty Foundation License 1.7:<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__">
<blockquote>
<p>Hi Misty Foundation,</p>
<p>You should read this page, <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process"
target="_blank">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process</a>,
and submit the license with the additional information as
outlined on that webpage. My quick take on it is that it a
much poorer version of a number of other licenses out there,
so pay particular attention to the request that a license
submitter must "describe what gap not filled by currently
existing licenses that the new license will fill."</p>
<p>Even at a glance, this license is suboptimal. For starters,
it appears to have a typo at the end of the definition for
"Software." By today's standards the copyright grant doesn't
have sufficiently inclusive language and it also doesn't
include a patent license grant, which would be good to think
about.</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>