[License-review] License submission for approval for Moritz30-Projects Open Source License Version 1

[Matthias Merkel]

"Also, Matthias really should not have started out titling it 'Open Source
Licence' without OSI review, as that is the very thing that was to be
determined, and, frankly, sounds extremely unlikely."
-
This is only a license draft for review. It is not an actually used license. Otherwise I wouldn't call it open source license.

"Also, Matthias, shouldn't your licence text include at least a timestamp
for the most recent revision time -- if not a specific licence version
number?"
-
I think I'll create sub version numbers.

To the link to the original softwate you're right. I'll change it in just an appropriate copyright notice. I'll also remove the part with "original" because as you said it's confusing in open source software licenses.


---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 23:58:51 +0200 rick at linuxmafia.com wrote ----

Quoting Simon Phipps (simon at webmink.com):

> Sending only the link like this will not make things easy for anyone.
> Please ensure the formatted and full text of your proposed license is
> in any e-mail where you announce revisions -- preferably with
> annotation to show where is has changed from the previous version and
> the reason for the change.

Also, Matthias, shouldn't your licence text include at least a timestamp
for the most recent revision time -- if not a specific licence version
number?

Mattias's currently available text on pastebin claims to be
'Moritz30-Projects Open Source License Version 1', but so did the
earlier, pre-revision text. Lack of revision indicator makes discussion
difficult.

Also, Matthias really should not have started out titling it 'Open Source
Licence' without OSI review, as that is the very thing that was to be
determined, and, frankly, sounds extremely unlikely.

At a quick glance at _today's_ text at
http://paste.moritz30.de/view/raw/72d5911b, quite a number of the
clauses seem deeply problematic. Going into the details doesn't even
strike me as a good use of Mattias's time or anyone else's. IMO, it
would be far better if he would simply use an existing, standard open
source licence (or a proprietary one if that better meets his needs).

_______________________________________________
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/20160609/3cb494f9/attachment.html>