[License-review] Octopus License

[dialog purpose]

Are these enough or more reasons are needed?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 10:04 PM, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Octopus License is different from other licenses, because:
>
> 1- It makes clear that THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO
> PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
> (most other licenses don't).
>
> 2- It makes clear that re-licensing is granted.
>
> 3- It mentions that all files associated with the software fall under the
> license unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
>
> 4- It has this statement, No written agreement, license, or royalty fee
> is required for any of the authorized uses.
>
> 5- Other permissive licenses are all short and not clear enough, but
> Octopus License is.
>
> 6- It grants placing warranty, all other permissive licenses don't.
>
> 7- it grants everyone to copyright their derived work.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2016 10:39 AM, dialog purpose wrote:
>> > It is different from MIT, ISC, BSD, UoI/NCSA Open Source License
>>
>> You need to explain *how* it's different, and why those differences are
>> important and needed in the OSS ecosystem.
>>
>> --Josh Berkus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161222/40abcb90/attachment.html>