<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I have the following comments on the license:</p>
<p>OSI will not approve licenses where the title refers to a
particular person, entity or software or that have them "hard
coded" into the license (see "Standard for New Licenses" para. 1,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process</a>). For this reason,
the license name and the text of the license cannot include
"CompanionNation."</p>
<p>The license does not grant all the rights under copyright, at
least under US law. US law also includes the right to publicly
perform and publicly display. This matters because, as an example,
use in SaaS might be considered a public performance or display of
the software. That said, it is also better practice not to define
the the grant by enumerating specific rights, since those may be
country-specific, and instead state more generally that all
necessary rights have been granted subject to the conditions of
the license. </p>
<p>The definition of "Software" is ambiguous. It is defined as
software that "includ[es] any modifications or derivative works."
This "or" statement suggests that modifications are different from
derivative works, but there is no description or definition of a
"modification." This matters because in the grant clause in some
places you have granted the right to make derivative works but not
modifications. For this reason too you have not necessarily
granted all rights under copyright. </p>
<p>You say that the license is a "simple permissive license," but
the definition of "Software" can lead to a conclusion that it is a
copyleft license. If I modify the "Software," and "Software"
includes "any modifications or derivative works," are my
modifications now subject to this license?</p>
<p>Also, the possibility that "modifications" that are not within
the scope of copyright may nevertheless become subject to the
license may violate OSD 9.</p>
<p>You have overstated what you perceive to be one flaw with the
Apache license, which is that the Apache license "imposes a NOTICE
file requirement." It is true that IF a notice file exists there
are obligations for others to provide it, but there is no duty for
the original licensor to include a NOTICE file ("<b><i>If </i></b>the
Work includes a 'NOTICE' text file as part of its distribution
..."). You can avoid the complexity of the NOTICE file requirement
by not including one.</p>
<p>You also say that a flaw of the MIT license is that it "requires
retention of the copyright notice and permission notice only,"
suggesting that a copy of the license is not required. That is not
accurate; the "permission notice" that you mention must be
provided <b><i>IS</i></b> the license. Thus, the gap that you
claim exists between your proposed license and the MIT and Apache
licenses is not as broad as you claim.</p>
<p>Please also note, per the license review guidelines, "a license
cannot be changed while it is being considered. If the license
submitter would like to change the language of the license, the
current version of the license should be withdrawn from review and
an updated version submitted. We recommend that, if changes are
going to be made, that the license submitter wait and collect all
the desired changes in a single new submission rather than
withdrawing and resubmitting the same license several times."</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>
<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>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/17/2026 6:22 AM, Drew McPherson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKz6_JOm_paPyZOTgsObQu=kqb60VUBgdzhyci3jeiou5CP7Pg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:garamond,"times new roman",serif;font-size:large"><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">To the
license-review list,</span></div>
<br>
I am submitting the CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0
(CNPL-1.0) for OSI approval. I am the author and license
steward.<br>
<br>
License steward and submitter:<br>
Drew McPherson (DrewZeroŽ)<br>
<a href="mailto:drew.mcpherson@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">drew.mcpherson@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
The full license text is attached as plain text.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 1. Unique name and identifier<br>
<br>
CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0<br>
Proposed SPDX identifier: CNPL-1.0<br>
<br>
Note: I am aware that CPL-1.0 is already registered (IBM
Common Public License). CNPL-1.0 is intentionally distinct.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 2. OSD compliance affirmations<br>
<br>
I affirm that CNPL-1.0 complies with the Open Source
Definition. Specifically:<br>
<br>
- OSD §3 (Derived Works): Section 2 grants unrestricted rights
to prepare and distribute derivative works. \u2713<br>
- OSD §5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups): The
license places no restrictions on any person or group. \u2713<br>
- OSD §6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor): The
license explicitly permits commercial use, SaaS deployment,
and any other purpose. \u2713<br>
- OSD §9 (License Must Not Restrict Other Software): The
license contains no such restriction. \u2713<br>
<br>
Full OSD mapping:<br>
<br>
§1 Free Redistribution \u2014 Sections 2 and 3 grant unconditional
redistribution rights with no royalty. \u2713<br>
§2 Source Code \u2014 The license imposes no source-withholding
restriction. \u2713<br>
§3 Derived Works \u2014 See above. \u2713<br>
§4 Integrity of Author's Source Code \u2014 No patch-file or
name-change restriction is imposed. \u2713<br>
§5 No Discrimination \u2014 See above. \u2713<br>
§6 No Field Restriction \u2014 See above. \u2713<br>
§7 Distribution of License \u2014 Rights apply to all downstream
recipients automatically. \u2713<br>
§8 Not Specific to a Product \u2014 Section 1 defines "Software"
generically; no product dependency. \u2713<br>
§9 No Restriction on Other Software \u2014 See above. \u2713<br>
§10 Technology Neutral \u2014 No technology-specific provision
exists. \u2713<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 3. Projects using this license<br>
<br>
CNPL-1.0 is a new license. It is currently in use by one
project:<br>
<br>
CompanioNation\u2122 \u2014 an open-source online dating platform<br>
<a href="https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core</a><br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 4. Gap not filled by existing licenses<br>
<br>
CNPL-1.0 is a simple permissive license with two features not
combined in any single currently approved license:<br>
<br>
a) An explicit, broad patent grant (as in Apache 2.0) combined
with permissive, copyleft-free terms (as in MIT). The MIT
License contains no patent grant. Apache 2.0 contains one, but
also imposes a NOTICE file requirement and has considerably
more complexity.<br>
<br>
b) A redistribution condition requiring the complete license
text (not merely a copyright notice) to be retained. This
ensures downstream recipients always receive the full grant of
rights \u2014 including the patent licence \u2014 rather than just a
copyright attribution line that may be stripped of legal
context.<br>
<br>
The intent is a license that is as simple as MIT, but legally
complete: explicit patent grant, full-text redistribution, and
no overhead.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 5. Comparison to similar approved licenses<br>
<br>
Most similar: MIT License<br>
- Both are permissive, copyleft-free, and impose minimal
conditions.<br>
- MIT requires retention of the copyright notice and
permission notice only. CNPL-1.0 requires retention of the
complete license text.<br>
- MIT contains no patent grant. CNPL-1.0 includes an explicit
patent grant with a litigation termination clause.<br>
<br>
Also comparable: Apache License 2.0<br>
- Both include explicit patent grants with litigation
termination.<br>
- Apache 2.0 requires a NOTICE file, tracks modifications, and
is substantially longer. CNPL-1.0 imposes none of those
requirements.<br>
- Apache 2.0 is permissive but complex. CNPL-1.0 is
intentionally minimal.<br>
<br>
In short: CNPL-1.0 occupies the space between MIT (no patent
grant, notice-only) and Apache 2.0 (patent grant, significant
overhead).<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 6. Legal review<br>
<br>
The license was drafted by the submitter, who is not a lawyer.
No formal legal review has been conducted. I welcome scrutiny
of the text on this list.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
## 7. Proposed tags<br>
<br>
Permissive, Patent-Grant, Simple<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
The license text is attached. I have subscribed to
license-review and will be attentive and responsive to
discussion.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your consideration.<br>
<br>
Drew McPherson<br>
License Steward, CNPL-1.0<br>
<a href="mailto:drew.mcpherson@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">drew.mcpherson@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core</a><br
clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
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>
</body>
</html>