CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0 (CNPL-1.0)

CompanioNation Public Licence, version 1.0 Proposed SPDX identifier: CNPL-1.0 Note: I am aware that CPL-1.0 is already registered (IBM Common Public License). CNPL-1.0 is intentionally distinct. ---

2. OSD compliance affirmations

I affirm that CNPL-1.0 complies with the Open Source Definition. Specifically: - OSD §3 (Derived Works): Section 2 grants unrestricted rights to prepare and distribute derivative works. ✓ - OSD §5 (No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups): The license places no restrictions on any person or group. ✓ - OSD §6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor): The license explicitly permits commercial use, SaaS deployment, and any other purpose. ✓ - OSD §9 (License Must Not Restrict Other Software): The license contains no such restriction. ✓ Full OSD mapping: §1 Free Redistribution — Sections 2 and 3 grant unconditional redistribution rights with no royalty. ✓ §2 Source Code — The license imposes no source-withholding restriction. ✓ §3 Derived Works — See above. ✓ §4 Integrity of Author's Source Code — No patch-file or name-change restriction is imposed. ✓ §5 No Discrimination — See above. ✓ §6 No Field Restriction — See above. ✓ §7 Distribution of License — Rights apply to all downstream recipients automatically. ✓ §8 Not Specific to a Product — Section 1 defines "Software" generically; no product dependency. ✓ §9 No Restriction on Other Software — See above. ✓ §10 Technology Neutral — No technology-specific provision exists. ✓ ---

3. Projects using this license

CNPL-1.0 is a new license. It is currently in use by one project: CompanioNation™ — an open-source online dating platform https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core ---

4. Gap not filled by existing licenses

CNPL-1.0 is a simple permissive license with two features not combined in any single currently approved license: a) An explicit, broad patent grant (as in Apache 2.0) combined with permissive, copyleft-free terms (as in MIT). The MIT License contains no patent grant. Apache 2.0 contains one, but also imposes a NOTICE file requirement and has considerably more complexity. b) A redistribution condition requiring the complete license text (not merely a copyright notice) to be retained. This ensures downstream recipients always receive the full grant of rights — including the patent licence — rather than just a copyright attribution line that may be stripped of legal context. The intent is a license that is as simple as MIT, but legally complete: explicit patent grant, full-text redistribution, and no overhead. ---

5. Comparison to similar approved licenses

Most similar: MIT License - Both are permissive, copyleft-free, and impose minimal conditions. - MIT requires retention of the copyright notice and permission notice only. CNPL-1.0 requires retention of the complete license text. - MIT contains no patent grant. CNPL-1.0 includes an explicit patent grant with a litigation termination clause. Also comparable: Apache License 2.0 - Both include explicit patent grants with litigation termination. - Apache 2.0 requires a NOTICE file, tracks modifications, and is substantially longer. CNPL-1.0 imposes none of those requirements. - Apache 2.0 is permissive but complex. CNPL-1.0 is intentionally minimal. In short: CNPL-1.0 occupies the space between MIT (no patent grant, notice-only) and Apache 2.0 (patent grant, significant overhead). ---

6. Legal review

The license was drafted by the submitter, who is not a lawyer. No formal legal review has been conducted. I welcome scrutiny of the text on this list. ---

7. Proposed tags

Permissive, Patent-Grant, Simple --- The license text is attached. I have subscribed to license-review and will be attentive and responsive to discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Drew McPherson License Steward, CNPL-1.0 drew.mcpherson at gmail.com https://github.com/CompanioNation/Core