[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 146, Issue 22

mistypigeon mistypigeon at disroot.org
Thu Dec 25 19:25:54 UTC 2025 

On 2025-12-22 16:02, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org wrote:

> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: Approval of my own License,Misty Foundation License 1.7:
> (Carlo Piana)
> 2. Re: Approval of my own License,Misty Foundation License 1.7:
> (McCoy Smith)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 15:23:59 +0100 (CET)
> From: Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval of my own License,Misty
> Foundation License 1.7:
> Message-ID:
> <1275789598.21789145.1766413439851.JavaMail.zimbra at piana.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 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 [1] ]
> 
>> 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-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 08:01:38 -0800
 From: McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law>
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval of my own License,Misty
     Foundation License 1.7:
Message-ID: <ac165c56-8c2d-4c8f-abbd-50b551460a03 at lexpan.law>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

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 [1]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251222/6526ffe7/attachment.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.odt>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

------------------------------

End of License-review Digest, Vol 146, Issue 22
***********************************************

Sorry for being late I didn't see this,Okay,I will see the links 😅

Links:
------
[1] http://www.chesteklegal.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251225/9ebfb344/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the License-review mailing list