[License-review] Octopus License

dialog purpose dialogpurpose at gmail.com
Mon Jan 9 08:01:40 UTC 2017

Octopus License is For Approval By License Steward

On Monday, January 9, 2017, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because Octopus License allows people to make modification and need not to
> follow the terms, which makes them to fully own their modified product and
> pretend they wrote it, The MIT or BSD or any other copyfree license do not
> have this feature. Octopus License is very clear for describing warrenty,
> as you might already saw that in the bottom of the lcense is says the
> authors have no obligation to provide or continue update, support, fix bugs
> or anything else.
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fontana at opensource.org');>> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 07:13:14PM +0300, dialog purpose wrote:
>> > Hi, I have send my license for approving, but no one is not even
>> mention or
>> > reply to me.
>> Actually you did get some responses prior to the New Year.
>> Can you please review https://opensource.org/approval and provide all
>> the 'supporting data' requested?
>> A few of the people responding have asked essentially what value you
>> think this license provides beyond the widely-used MIT and 3/2-clause
>> BSD licenses. I don't think you have adequately answered this question
>> yet.
>> > My license allows modification to the software be copyrighted
>> > by their authors and need not to follow the licesing terms described in
>> the
>> > license,
>> This is also understood to be a feature of all commonly-used
>> noncopyleft open source licenses.
>> > also, it has the "and license" in permission list, which makes it
>> > clear tha relicesing and sublicensing is granted,
>> The MIT license explicitly permits sublicensing.
>> > these are major
>> > differences between Octopus License and other licenses (including
>> copyfree
>> > and copyleft and weak copyleft licenses), in fact, Octopus License has
>> many
>> > more technical differences to other licenses, but it fully follows the
>> Open
>> > Source Definition and conditions. Please, OSI, approve my license as
>> soon
>> > as possible, it has been a month that I cannot release my collaborative
>> > open source project, because I want to use the Atlassian products which
>> are
>> > free for public open source projects but with the condition of being
>> > licensed under an OSI-approved license.
>> I am afraid we can't rush approval. If you're in a hurry to use a
>> Atlassian product free of charge, what's the harm in using, say, the
>> MIT license for the current version of your project, given that it is
>> very similar to the license you've drafted?
>> Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170109/88094f57/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list