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

[McCoy Smith]

here's what a compare looks like.

There's mostly just a lot of just moving around language without 
substantive change.

The only substantive changes I see are:

1. A statement that "obtaining, using or copying the Software" 
constitutes acceptance of its terms. I'm not sure whether simply 
"obtaining" can be something that triggers a contractual acceptance.

2. Defining Licensor, although only in the singular, as the creator, not 
any subsequent modifiers/copyright holders. This makes the obligations 
discriminatory as the prohibition of using the "Licensor"s name would 
only apply to the original author, not any subsequent author. Same 
applies to the disclaimers -- applies only to Licensor/original author, 
not any subsequent author, so is discriminatory. Thus violates OSD 5.

As noted, the ellipsis is ambiguous and not correct or good legal 
drafting. I think any future submission would need to indicate a legal 
review has been done, and by whom, in view of this.

On 12/22/2025 6:23 AM, Carlo Piana via License-review wrote:

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, 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
    www.chesteklegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251222/6526ffe7/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: misty compare mit.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 40559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251222/6526ffe7/attachment-0001.odt>