[License-review] NOSA 2.0 - 'Up or Down' vote

[dialog purpose]

Well, I think I gotta dual-license it under ISC License and my Octopus
License. Now I gotta enjoy Atlassian very well :)

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting dialog purpose (dialogpurpose at gmail.com <javascript:;>):
>
> > No, I was wrong. I remembered that the license has simply does not say
> > "you can recopyright it" and I remembered how much effort I made for
> > the license. Octopus License is based on Tcl/Tk, so if Octopus has
> > mistakes, then Tcl has also mistakes.
>
> Not all of the existing OSI-certified licences are particularly
> good.  Probably some shouldn't have been approved at all.  Errare
> humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.
>
> Also, one of the commonest mistakes on OSI's license-review and
> license-discuss mailing lists is 'I borrowed passages from one or more
> OSI-certified licence, so surely what results is a good licence.' This
> has lead to trouble, time and again.
>
>
> > But Octopus license fixed many technical mistakes (such as copyright
> > format) by lawyers, and I am the one who paid a lot of money to those.
>
> Sunk cost is such a heartbreak.
>
> (As a point of clarification in case it was unclear, the Board and
> License Review Chair speak for OSI.  I'm just a participating member of
> the surrounding open source community.)
>
> Please do enjoy your Atlassian experience.  I particularly admire Jira,
> except every few weeks when its Java stack falls over.
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org <javascript:;>
> 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/20170112/3e428336/attachment.html>