[License-review] Octopus License

[Jim Jagielski]

I am curious how you think it differs substantially from
others other than simply rephrasing the same things.

> On Dec 22, 2016, at 2:04 PM, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Octopus License is different from other licenses, because:
> 
> 1- It makes clear that THE AUTHORS AND DISTRIBUTORS HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. (most other licenses don't).
> 
> 2- It makes clear that re-licensing is granted.
> 
> 3- It mentions that all files associated with the software fall under the license unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files.
> 
> 4- It has this statement, No written agreement, license, or royalty fee is required for any of the authorized uses.
> 
> 5- Other permissive licenses are all short and not clear enough, but Octopus License is.
> 
> 6- It grants placing warranty, all other permissive licenses don't.
> 
> 7- it grants everyone to copyright their derived work.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Josh berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
> On 12/22/2016 10:39 AM, dialog purpose wrote:
> > It is different from MIT, ISC, BSD, UoI/NCSA Open Source License
> 
> You need to explain *how* it's different, and why those differences are
> important and needed in the OSS ecosystem.
> 
> --Josh Berkus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review