> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Josh Berkus > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:13 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; Alec Bloss <abl...@libranext.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Request for Comment: Software and > Development License, version 3.0 > > > More comments: > > 1. There's no patent grant in this license. B.3. is a patent grant. > > 6. It seems weird to call the first release of a new license "3.0". Agree with that. Its seems to be an effort to (possibly) indicate that this is an "improved" version over (non-existing?) predecessor versions. This one has various basic drafting problems, for example the conditions of the license grant are strangely articulated (there's a condition on the copyright grant, a separate condition on all the grants, and no equivalent condition to the one on the copyright grant to the patent grant). I don't see any indication (which is a requirement of submission <https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/> ) that this was reviewed by a lawyer, and it's not really clear to me that the other requirements for submission of a new license were met either. I think a lot of the drafting issues here could be addressed by having some sort of legal review on this license (and I don't think submitting it to the list in the hope that the lawyers on the list will do the legal review ought to count). So I'd suggest further discussion of this license be deferred until the initial requirements of the approval process be met.
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
