[License-review] Hooyami License Version 1.1 for Approval

Smith, McCoy mccoy.smith at intel.com
Mon Jul 31 21:10:23 UTC 2017

This still has some significant drafting issues with it, in my opinion:

1.  The disclaimer of warranties comes after the statement “END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” which could be (very likely would be) construed as not part of the license and therefore ineffective.  If that’s the intent, so be it but that doesn’t seem to be.
2.  The way this is now drafted, unmodified versions of the code must be under the same license terms, but modified versions need not be.  The result being that it is “copyleft” for unmodified code, but permissive for modified code.  I wonder what problem this formulation solves, since presumably a user could always get the unmodified code from the original author, and thus the “copyleft” part of this license provides no real benefit.
3.  The formulation of the patent grant is curious, in that it seems to grant patent licenses only to modifications that are fed back to the original project creator, but not modifications that are distributed separately from the project.  If that was the intent (it may be), it would seem to incentivize subsequent authors to not feed back changes to the canonical code project so as to avoid having to license patents to those modifications.

There still also seem to be some non-idiomatic language issues as well in at least some of the definitions.

From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of nicklaus yap
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:15 AM
To: license-review at opensource.org
Subject: [License-review] Hooyami License Version 1.1 for Approval

Rationale: The license serve the purpose to allow better clarification on relicensing in open source project

Compare to MIT license, Hooyami license has support for patent claim.
Compare to BSD-3-clause, Hooyami license state clearly the user right.
Compare to GPL-2.0, Hooyami license allow user to make modification to their source code without needing to be redistributed in the same license as copyleft. Only part that has not been modify need to be under the same license.

Proliferation category:
I would recommend Hooyami License to be under Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses because some of the terms and condition may be same with other open source license.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170731/a3f5de9e/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list