On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, at 14:39, McCoy Smith wrote: > 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). >
This was not submitted to -review, only to -discuss, so those requirements don't apply (yet).
_______________________________________________ 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
