[License-review] Octopus License

[dialog purpose]

The differences of Octopus License and other licenes are:

- having the phrase "license" in the permission list (none of available
copyfree licenses explicitly have this phrase).
- Describing that all documentation and files that are related to the
project are all fall under the license.
- Describing that the authors have no obligation to provide maintenance,
update, support, and others.
- Describing that modifications can be copyrighted by there authors and
need not to follow the terms, this allows them to even pretend they wrote
and own the entire software and docs).
- It has a good name which makes it to be free from any university,
company, or product.

On Monday, January 9, 2017, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com> wrote:

> Octopus License is For Approval By License Steward
>
> On Monday, January 9, 2017, dialog purpose <dialogpurpose at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dialogpurpose at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Because Octopus License allows people to make modification and need not
>> to follow the terms, which makes them to fully own their modified product
>> and pretend they wrote it, The MIT or BSD or any other copyfree license do
>> not have this feature. Octopus License is very clear for describing
>> warrenty, as you might already saw that in the bottom of the lcense is says
>> the authors have no obligation to provide or continue update, support, fix
>> bugs or anything else.
>>
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 07:13:14PM +0300, dialog purpose wrote:
>>> > Hi, I have send my license for approving, but no one is not even
>>> mention or
>>> > reply to me.
>>>
>>> Actually you did get some responses prior to the New Year.
>>>
>>> Can you please review https://opensource.org/approval and provide all
>>> the 'supporting data' requested?
>>>
>>> A few of the people responding have asked essentially what value you
>>> think this license provides beyond the widely-used MIT and 3/2-clause
>>> BSD licenses. I don't think you have adequately answered this question
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> > My license allows modification to the software be copyrighted
>>> > by their authors and need not to follow the licesing terms described
>>> in the
>>> > license,
>>>
>>> This is also understood to be a feature of all commonly-used
>>> noncopyleft open source licenses.
>>>
>>> > also, it has the "and license" in permission list, which makes it
>>> > clear tha relicesing and sublicensing is granted,
>>>
>>> The MIT license explicitly permits sublicensing.
>>>
>>> > these are major
>>> > differences between Octopus License and other licenses (including
>>> copyfree
>>> > and copyleft and weak copyleft licenses), in fact, Octopus License has
>>> many
>>> > more technical differences to other licenses, but it fully follows the
>>> Open
>>> > Source Definition and conditions. Please, OSI, approve my license as
>>> soon
>>> > as possible, it has been a month that I cannot release my collaborative
>>> > open source project, because I want to use the Atlassian products
>>> which are
>>> > free for public open source projects but with the condition of being
>>> > licensed under an OSI-approved license.
>>>
>>> I am afraid we can't rush approval. If you're in a hurry to use a
>>> Atlassian product free of charge, what's the harm in using, say, the
>>> MIT license for the current version of your project, given that it is
>>> very similar to the license you've drafted?
>>>
>>> Richard
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170109/1afa9325/attachment.html>