Generally, I cannot accept any kind of license-related stuff from others and would like to work on it by myself (feedbacks are of course welcome).

By the way, which OSS project did you use as a reference?

@nuta For the COPYING file? None really, I pretty much just went of critiques from others on the licenses themselves, added provisions, precedent in rulings, and the discussions on GitHub in general.

Also at other standard additions from contracts that I've observed across multiple jurisdictions in both Eurasia & America. Like with the Explicit Grant reference it isn't really required for Jurisdictions such as the UK and likely EU since it's implied by the rights afforded by MIT. But an explicit clause gives the ability to limit it or grant in places where it may not be in precedent or local laws.

If something is under permissive licenses, it's good to have points like that cleared up :)

CLA's and mechanisms like that could come in handy at making things easier in the future too

With the CLA, could also do an MIT-0 Styled license which allows it to be changed entirely in forks while still having copyright in it for those that want to maintain Mozilla or GPLv3 variants as seen in new issue

Severability/salvatorius: If any word, part, portion, provision , of this is or should become illegal, invalid, null or void, rendering this unenforceable in any jurisdiction, that then shall not affect:

• the validity or enforceability in that jurisdiction of any other provision of this Agreement; nor the validity or enforceability in any other types of jurisdictions on that or of any other provision of this Agreement.
• Any other part of this

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this contract document, and changing it is allowed

MIT Based:

Copyright (c) <insert year here - E.g. 2022> <insert names of those with main project copyrights - E.g. Seiya Nuta & Others> 
With (Some) Rights Reserved 

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

THAT THIS IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

But if this and a CLA were put together in a "COPYING" file then it can be argued that it would become a contract agreement and I understand if you are uncomfortable with removing provisions such as the requirement to keep the MIT text shared in maintained forks. That would be my input on all of the options though :) @nuta
Anyone can feel free to do whatever with all the stuff I've provided here so far

I'm not the lawyer. Adding anything on top of existing peer reviewed license texts is walking on a thin ice.

Of course, which is why I did say I would understand if everyone was uncomfortable with any kind of MIT-0 Styled license

In the worst case scenario while using that and a CLA contract in one 'COPYING' document, if it were to be found null & void as a whole even with severability provisions then the rights would automatically default back to the original holders of the project (an 'All Rights Reserved' until cured)

So I assume that this is rejected, should the pull request be closed now?

(Closing due to no activity but leaving clarification available for use should you want to, but the stated license options would still be MIT and/or Apache in any case)