[License-review] For Approval: OpenMDW License Agreement, versions 1.1 (OpenMDW-1.1)

[Stefano Maffulli]

On 8/26/26 00:58, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more. The role of the OSI is to preserve and 
> protect the open source ecosystem and community, which should be a 
> fundamental part of the review of any license - does it advance the 
> interests of the open source community? 

I agree on OSI's role and that of the review process, I believe we're on 
the same front here: I'm also invested in advancing the interests of the 
open source community.

Back to the license review:

If I understand correctly, the main objection to the OpenMDW-1.1 license 
is that it terminates all the rights to the licensor who sues the 
licensee for either copyright or patent violation. While the GPLv3 (and 
possibly other licenses) seem to allow termination of patent and 
copyright upon patent assertion, the OpenMDW 1.1 terminates copyright 
and patents also upon copyright assertion.

Pam's argument (quoting from messages sent to this list):

     > someone whose code was infringed cannot bring a claim for
    infringement, even where the OpenMDW 1.1 licensor is an intentional,
    willful infringer

and:

     > The reason for treating patent and copyright infringement
    differently is that copyright infringement requires copying. That
    means that there was a volitional act (whether lawful or unlawful)
    on the part of the licensor, and the license gives them blanket
    immunity for that act.

Dolan clarified that there is no "blanket immunity":

     > 2. On "someone whose code was infringed cannot bring a claim":
    that is not what the provision does, and I want to be precise about
    it because the distinction matters. B can bring the claim, including
    for willful infringement, with every remedy intact, and A must
    defend it fully. There is no immunity of any kind. What B cannot do
    is keep exercising A's license to X while maintaining the suit.

Dolan's message added also very practical examples of why this 
theoretical case of "freedom 0 denial" (as Simon put it) is not only 
illogical but also, being tied to the very practical example of SCO vs 
IBM, it could be a net positive.

I still don't see how the termination clause would be a bad thing for 
the open source ecosystem. What am I missing?