<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:03\u202fAM Richard Fontana via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The asserted policy<br>
justification for copyright-triggered termination has no relevance to<br>
latex2html.py, and yet it is swept in improperly by this termination<br>
provision.</blockquote><div>...</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The OSI must consider how a submitted license will operate when<br>
applied to ordinary software. OpenMDW-1.1 is flawed in its basic<br>
conception, as a consequence of the termination provision. Its whole<br>
raison d'être is to have a single license that applies to everything.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Richard, I understand that OpenMDW may seem novel in bundling disparate artifacts under one license, but that is how most technical packages (open and closed source) are licensed and received<span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none"> \u2013 e.g.,</span> a package or repository with a collection of software programs, documentation, and other types of assets. I suspect many other OSI-approved licenses with \u201clitigation trigger\u201d termination provisions would not limit termination to only the affected materials.<br><br>If I <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">take your concern and try to map it to </span>a solution, it would require <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">that a termination provision be justified</span> artifact-by-artifact within the licensed work, and I suspect you might agree that is problematic as well. Apache-2.0's own patent termination applies to the entire Work, including documentation and build scripts that (presumably) face no patent exposure at all. <br><br>The unit of open source licensing has always been the work as provided, not each file measured separately against the policy that motivated each clause. latex2html.py sits in a Model Materials release exactly where a borrowed build script sits in an Apache Work, and we have debated what "the Work" covers for twenty years without anyone suggesting their answer could also affect Apache-2.0's conformance with the OSD.</div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">I hope that <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">helps clarify</span> why, even though I understand the concern you're raising, I don't agree with the logic behind how you're applying it.</div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">Mike<br><div> </div></div></div>