Subject: RE: For Approval: MindTree Public License
From: (Matthew Seth Flaschen)
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:45:44 +0000

There's no way this complies with the OSD.  With little effort, I can easily find 

"By clicking on the I Agree button below, You shall be affirming ..."

which is a pure violation of OSD#10(it's exactly what that term was for)

If he fixes that, I'm sure I can find more violations.  It's just not worth the effort,
at least not now.

-Matt Flaschen

> --On 15 October 2005 07:56 -0700 Michael Bernstein <> wrote:
> > Can anyone else not see the problems with this?
> The reasons why us OVPL folks did not do it this way is
> a) it seemed unfair to deprive the author of the rights of copyright (even
>    if one isn't an OVPL fan, one must admit it is fairer to require a
>    license of your code in return for a license to mine, than an assignment
>    of all your IP rights in return for a copyright license).
> b) it's not enforceable in many jurisdictions anyway (including the US
>    where AIUI a copyright assignment has to be made by written instrument -
>    though IIRC not an agreement to grant an assignment, but then this
>    isn't a contract), which quite possibly leaves the ID with nothing.
> We tried quite hard to make the OVPL a fair balance. Based on comments
> thus-far (I admit I haven't read the license) the MT license is rather more
> one-sided. I also believe it would be ineffective. That said, I can't
> actually find an OSD term it breaks.
> Alex