[License-review] New license submission
chrisjones at spin.net.au
Fri May 3 21:23:05 UTC 2013
On 05/03/2013 07:22 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:
> before entering into much detail as to compatibility, why another slight
> variation of the MIT? What are you trying to achieve here that cannot be
> achieved with the required inclusion of all copyright notice? Just
> because you put it as a "condition"? (I must have already had this
> discussion elsewhere)
> Beside that, I don't understand how the additional requirement should
> apply in practice.
> Can you please provide a rationale and why this should pass the
> "proliferation" test? So far my opinion is negative, for what it's worth.
We worked off the MIT License because it is what suits our requirements,
with the appropriate changes that we have made.
What my organization is trying to achieve is very simple; We are
releasing software that is actually developed with the assiatance of and
on shared infrastructure of another software organization that we work
The fairest way that we could outline this was to develop a new license
which made it compulsory to specify now and in future software released
under FTL, where the software originated from and who was the current
owner of the specific software for which the license is attached. This
also allows freedom in copying, modifying, distributing etc. the
software as you would most other Free and Open-Source licenses.
I hope this helps you understand what we are trying to achieve with The
Freedom Transfer License v1.0. We like the concept and think that it can
work. But we need to work through the process and make changes where
appropriate based on the advice of the Open-Source Initiative.
If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
More information about the License-review