Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Content License 1.0
From: Ernest Prabhakar <>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 16:50:01 -0800

Hi Michal,

On Dec 25, 2004, at 1:45 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
> So here comes my another license (the previouse one is no longer 
> supported
> nor available). It is more general (MN ODL was designed for 
> documentation
> MN OCL is designed for anything) however gives user the same basic 
> rights.
> The main difference in case of rights is section 5.3 which treats about
> patents.

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!  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 

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.

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?

- Ernie P.
  IANAL, TINLA etc etc