<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Open Sans";
panose-1:2 11 6 6 3 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This still has some significant drafting issues with it, in my opinion:<br>
<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There still also seem to be some non-idiomatic language issues as well in at least some of the definitions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces@opensource.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>nicklaus yap<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017 10:15 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> license-review@opensource.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [License-review] Hooyami License Version 1.1 for Approval<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:#FCFCFC">Rationale: The license serve the purpose to allow better clarification on relicensing in open source project</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:#FCFCFC">Distinguish: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:#FCFCFC">Compare to MIT license, Hooyami license has support for patent claim.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444">Compare to BSD-3-clause, Hooyami license state clearly the user right.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:#FCFCFC">Proliferation category:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#444444;background:#FCFCFC">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>