[License-review] NOSA 2.0 - 'Up or Down' vote

dialog purpose dialogpurpose at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 16:28:24 UTC 2017

No, I was wrong. I remembered that the license has simply does not say "you
can recopyright it" and I remembered how much effort I made for the
license. Octopus License is based on Tcl/Tk, so if Octopus has mistakes,
then Tcl has also mistakes. But Octopus license fixed many technical
mistakes (such as copyright format) by lawyers, and I am the one who paid a
lot of money to those. Now either approve my license, or I can never
release and collaborate my project using the Atlassian products.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:

> On 10/01/17 10:56, dialog purpose wrote:
> > You all are taking about NOSA, which is probably one of the worst open
> > source licene out there, but none of u talk about or review my license
> Because you said "I agree now that I don't need to try approve Octopus
> License,  since it has some mistakes".
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org <javascript:;>
> 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/20170111/f7537e3a/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list