[License-review] Octopus License

[dialog purpose]

It is more clear than the licenses that I've just mentioned. I named it
"Octopus" because it is a fun and good name.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It is different from MIT, ISC, BSD, UoI/NCSA Open Source License
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:38 PM, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello :)
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Josh berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/22/2016 10:31 AM, dialog purpose wrote:
>>> > Hello, my name is Barzi Maghdid Ahmad, I have an open-source which I
>>> > want Open Source Initiative to approve it. It is based on Tcl/Tk
>>> > license, but I solved many problems to make it conform to the Open
>>> > Source Definition. I named it Octopus License. here is the license
>>> template:
>>>
>>> So, can you explain why this license is needed when we have both the MIT
>>> and two different BSD licenses?  The only substative difference I see is
>>> the requirement to add a copyright notice in each file, which is hard to
>>> regard as an improvement.
>>>
>>> Also, why "octopus"?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20161222/c4b3e395/attachment.html>