<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2026 5:37 AM, Kevin P. Fleming
via License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:159c04b4-e645-4033-b5dc-8702db41fd33@app.fastmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<div>On Fri, Feb 20, 2026, at 05:12, Timofey Zakharcuk wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style="">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> I, Timofey Zakharchuk, am the author and proposed
steward of the OSCL, can be contacted at: <span
style="background-color:rgb(233, 238, 246);color:rgb(31, 31, 31);text-align:center;"><span
class="font"
style="font-family:"Google Sans", Roboto;"><span
class="size" style="font-size:14px;"><a
href="mailto:timofey.zakharchuk.research@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">timofey.zakharchuk.research@gmail.com</a></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div> OSCL is a strong copyleft license designed to preserve
software freedom while offering</div>
<div>clear definitions of derivative works, linking, and
unified works. It aims to provide a modern alternative to
the GPL, while retaining compatibility with the GNU General
Public License. It is intended to fill the gap between
permissive and strong copyleft licenses, for people who want
strong copyleft of the GPL and the file-level copyleft of
MPL at one time, offering freedom and clarity to its users.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>As noted in the License Review process page, there are some
additional items of information you will need to provide:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<li>Compare it to and contrast it with the most similar
OSI-approved license(s).</li>
<li>Describe any legal review the license has been through,
including whether it was drafted by a lawyer.</li>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
The clear answer to the second bullet is that no lawyer was involved
in the drafting of this license. This was evident from the first two
lines.<br>
<br>
The grant is to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, and distribute
the Software." This is a very odd assortment of rights granted that
don't track with copyright or patent law in any jurisdiction. I
assume it's taken from the MIT license, albeit without "sell copies"
and also missing the critical "to deal in the Software without
restriction," the saving language of the MIT license.<br>
<br>
The licensing party for the patent rights is the Author, the
"original creator of the Software." The original creator may not be
the one granting the license. The original creator may have assigned
their copyright and patent rights to someone else who is granting
the license. If so, the assignee is not granting the patent rights
since it is the Author (who now doesn't have any) who grants the
rights to them. The OSI has long disapproved licensees that don't,
at least implicitly, grant a patent license and this one in some
situations may not. <br>
<br>
The same flaw is in the definition of "Contributor," which refers to
the Author accepting submissions when the Author may no longer even
be involved in the project.<br>
<br>
I did not go any further because it's clear this license requires
further work - please don't think that you can fix these two
problems and the license will be fine, there are many other
inconsistencies throughout the license.<br>
<br>
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>
<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>
</body>
</html>