<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body >"Also, Matthias really should not have started out titling it 'Open Source<br>Licence' without OSI review, as that is the very thing that was to be<br>determined, and, frankly, sounds extremely unlikely."<br>-<br>This is only a license draft for review. It is not an actually used license. Otherwise I wouldn't call it open source license.<br><br>"Also, Matthias, shouldn't your licence text include at least a timestamp<br>for the most recent revision time -- if not a specific licence version<br>number?"<br>-<br>I think I'll create sub version numbers.<br><br>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.<div><br></div><div><br id="br3">
<div id="signature"></div>
<div id="content"><blockquote><br> ---- On Mi, 08 Jun 2016 23:58:51 +0200 <b> rick@linuxmafia.com </b> wrote ----<br><br><div>Quoting Simon Phipps (<a href="mailto:simon@webmink.com" target="_blank">simon@webmink.com</a>):<br><br>> Sending only the link like this will not make things easy for anyone.<br>> Please ensure the formatted and full text of your proposed license is<br>> in any e-mail where you announce revisions -- preferably with<br>> annotation to show where is has changed from the previous version and<br>> the reason for the change.<br><br>Also, Matthias, shouldn't your licence text include at least a timestamp<br>for the most recent revision time -- if not a specific licence version<br>number?<br><br>Mattias's currently available text on pastebin claims to be<br>'Moritz30-Projects Open Source License Version 1', but so did the<br>earlier, pre-revision text. Lack of revision indicator makes discussion<br>difficult.<br><br>Also, Matthias really should not have started out titling it 'Open Source<br>Licence' without OSI review, as that is the very thing that was to be<br>determined, and, frankly, sounds extremely unlikely.<br><br>At a quick glance at _today's_ text at<br><a href="http://paste.moritz30.de/view/raw/72d5911b" target="_blank">http://paste.moritz30.de/view/raw/72d5911b</a>, quite a number of the<br>clauses seem deeply problematic. Going into the details doesn't even<br>strike me as a good use of Mattias's time or anyone else's. IMO, it<br>would be far better if he would simply use an existing, standard open<br>source licence (or a proprietary one if that better meets his needs).<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br></div></blockquote></div>
</div></body></html>