Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Content License 1.0
From: Michal Nazarewicz <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:00:07 +0100

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 28 of December 2004 01:50, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> I skimmed through it, and didn't see anything that appeared to violate
> the OSD -- though including OSD certification as part of the license is
> a bit unusual, to say the least!

Zope Public License ( have similar
notice and there was a license with almost identical sentence but I can't
find it now.

> You might need to make that an
> appendix, since otherwise there might be a strange race condition in
> that we can't approve it 'as is' since at that time its not
> accurate....

It's not a big deal so I can even remove the notice if it make approval

> One area that could be clarified; in Section 1.2, you should probably
> explicitly state that they have to do at least one (1) of the options
> a-d, rather than potentially having to do all of them.

Thought that "or" after each option is enought but changed[1] as you

> However, I would like to understand exactly what problem you are trying
> to solve that isn't well addressed by existing licenses.   In
> particular, how does this handle documentation or other forms of
> content better than, say, the AFL?

The ASF does not require the source to be distributed along with the work.

[1] The newes verion of the license is available at

- --
Pozdrawiam                                          _     _
.o. | Wasal Jasnie Oswieconej Pani Informatyki    o' \,=./ `o
..o | Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz <mina86*>    (o o)
ooo +--<jid:mina86*>---<tlen:mina86>---ooO--(_)--Ooo--
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)