[License-review] [License-Review] QmDeve License 1.0

[Carlo Piana]

Hi,

thank you for submitting

However, on a cursory reading, there are things I am dissatisfied with.

I don't really approve of the use of "copyright holder or its [perhaps their?] contributor", as this creates two different sets of copyright holders: the copyright holder and the contributors. I know this is similar to what happens with Apache, but repeating the same mistake does not make it less of a mistake. Plus, the Apache at least includes contributors in one single pool as the licensor (licensor is a contributor). This comes to relevance since the disclaimer of liability refers to Authors or Copyright holders (not sure capitalized, since it's all caps). I am not sure if Authors includes Contributors, see below, but why using such a sloppy language?

A clarification: you state that

> Contributor Clarity: It explicitly states that contributions are licensed
> under the same terms, clarifying the inbound-outbound contribution process for
> projects.

This sounds like aiming at a copyleft (share alike) effect. However, your idea of inbound-outbound flow seems limited to one scenario. It copies the Apache license, but without the definition of how the contributions are made. Would taking the software, extending it and redistribution make a contribution? Would that be covered by the patent provision, since nobody "contributed" anything to a specific one, but to the generality of potential recipients? 

Moreover, I am not sure it is a "share alike" provision, as the copyright grant under the contribution section does not state "under the terms of this license", it seems to imply an automated unconditioned license. This actively discriminates between the licensor, who imposes conditions, and contributors, who just give away their contributions without corresponding conditions, including (apparently) the liability limitation, unless contributors are within "authors". 

But the contributors might not be authors and copyright holders not necessarily are authors and vice-versa, so the equivalence is a bit far fetched.

You do not appear to have obtained a legal advice or revision. Most of the above criticism would have probably been avoided by a legal review. Using approved language is no substitute for a legal review.

The above remarks, and others that a more attentive scrutiny could attract, make me believe that this license should not be approved, not as is. 

Cheers

Carlo, in his personal capacity




----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "QmDeve" <me at qmdeve.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Lunedì, 24 novembre 2025 11:02:15
> Oggetto: [License-review] [License-Review] QmDeve License 1.0

> Dear OSI License Review Committee,
> 
> I am writing to submit the "QmDeve License 1.0" for approval as an Open Source
> Initiative (OSI) approved license.
> 
> 1、License Text
> 
> The full text of the QmDeve License 1.0 is provided below:
> 
> ```
> QmDeve License
> Version 1.0, November 2025
> 
> Copyright (c) 2025 <Name>
> 
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
> this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
> the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
> use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and to permit persons to whom
> the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> 
> 1. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
> all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> 
> 2. The name of the copyright holder or its contributors shall not be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
> written permission.
> 
> Contributor Grant: By submitting contributions to the Software, you grant the
> copyright holder and users of the Software a perpetual, worldwide,
> non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce,
> prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense,
> and distribute your contributions and such derivative works.
> 
> Patent Grant: The copyright holder and each contributor hereby grants to you a
> perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as
> stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell,
> sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Software, where such license applies
> only to those patent claims licensable by such copyright holder or contributor
> that are necessarily infringed by their contribution(s) alone or by combination
> of their contribution(s) with the Software to which such contribution(s) was
> submitted. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Software or a
> contribution incorporated within the Software constitutes direct or
> contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to you under
> this license for the Software shall terminate as of the date such litigation is
> filed.
> 
> Disclaimer of Warranty: THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF
> ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO
> EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES
> OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> ```
> 
> 2、Rationale for Submission
> 
> While permissive licenses like MIT and Apache 2.0 are excellent and widely used,
> we believe the QmDeve License 1.0 addresses a specific combination of needs
> that is not fully met by existing options:
> 
> · Simplicity and Clarity: It retains the straightforward language and minimal
> restrictions of the MIT license.
> · Explicit Patent Protection: Unlike the MIT license, it includes an explicit,
> modern patent grant and termination clause, similar to Apache 2.0, which
> provides crucial legal safety for users and contributors in today's software
> landscape.
> · Trademark Protection: It includes a no-endorsement clause (like BSD-3-Clause
> and Apache 2.0) to protect the "QmDeve" organization name and identity from
> being used to endorse derived products without permission.
> · Contributor Clarity: It explicitly states that contributions are licensed
> under the same terms, clarifying the inbound-outbound contribution process for
> projects.
> 
> We believe this combination—a truly permissive core, coupled with explicit
> patent and trademark protections—creates a balanced and secure license for
> modern open-source projects.
> 
> 3、Check against the Open Source Definition (OSD)
> 
> We affirm that the QmDeve License 1.0 conforms to all ten criteria of the Open
> Source Definition:
> 
> 1. Free Redistribution: Yes. Permits redistribution and sale.
> 2. Source Code: Yes. Source code can be freely distributed.
> 3. Derived Works: Yes. Allows creation and distribution of modifications and
> derived works.
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: Yes. Condition 1 preserves copyright
> notices.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: Yes.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: Yes.
> 7. Distribution of License: Yes. The license applies automatically to all
> redistributors.
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: Yes. The license is not tied to a
> specific product.
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: Yes. It does not place restrictions
> on other software distributed alongside it.
> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: Yes. The license is not specific to any
> technology or interface.
> 
> 
> 4、Proliferation and Redundancy Analysis
> 
> We have analyzed this license against the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses.
> 
> · vs. MIT: The QmDeve License 1.0 provides significant additional protections
> (patent and trademark) that the MIT license lacks, addressing a modern legal
> concern.
> · vs. Apache 2.0: While Apache 2.0 is a comprehensive license, it is longer and
> more complex. The QmDeve License 1.0 aims for a middle ground—providing similar
> core protections (patent, trademark) but in a potentially more accessible
> format. We believe this fills a niche for projects that want stronger legal
> safeguards than MIT but prefer a different structure than Apache 2.0.
> 
> 5、Legal Review
> 
> This license text has been drafted with careful consideration of established
> open-source legal language. (Note: We recommend you add here if you have had it
> reviewed by a qualified attorney, e.g., "It has been reviewed by [Law Firm
> Name].")
> 
> 6、Known Use
> 
> This license is currently planned for use by projects under the "QmDeve"
> organization on GitHub. We are seeking OSI approval to ensure its legitimacy
> and foster wider community adoption.
> 
> We welcome feedback from the committee and the community and are prepared to
> discuss and refine the license text based on your recommendations.
> 
> Thank you for your time and consideration.
> 
> Sincerely
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org