[License-review] Approval of my own License,Misty Foundation License 1.7:

[Carlo Piana]

Pam, Misty, 

this was also my immediate reaction. Why another MIT-style license [0], the hundredth or so? 

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. 

The lack of quality in the licensing text itself is also apparent, never mind the absolute lack of the necessary information accompanying the submission. 

EG, the grant says " distribute the Software …free 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. 

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. 

All the best, 

Carlo, in his personal capacity. 

[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. 

> Da: "Pamela Chestek" <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Lunedì, 22 dicembre 2025 0:21:08
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] Approval of my own License,Misty Foundation
> License 1.7:

> Hi Misty Foundation,

> You should read this page, [ https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process |
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process ] , 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."

> 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.
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal
> [ http://www.chesteklegal.com/ | www.chesteklegal.com ]

> On 12/19/2025 3:59 AM, mistypigeon via License-review wrote:

>> Misty Foundation License 1.7

>> Copyright (c) (YEAR) (YOUR NAME)

>> By obtaining, using, and/or copying this Software, you agree that you have read,
>> understood, and will comply with the following terms and conditions:

>> Software refers to the source code, binary files, and documentation provided
>> under this License.Hi

>> " Licensor " refers to the copyright holder (the creator of the Software) listed
>> above.

>> Permission is granted to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, and distribute the
>> Software …free of charge, PROVIDED THAT:

>> You cannot use the Licensor's name to promote products derived from the
>> Software, unless with direct permission from them.

>> All of this License (including the copyright notice, definitions, and
>> conditions) must be included in all copies (including distributions/derivation)
>> or substantial portions of the Software.

>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED 'AS IS', WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
>> PURPOSE OR NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>> CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 [ mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org |
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org ] [
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> |
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> ]

> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251222/4fe9fa0f/attachment.htm>