From pamela.chestek at opensource.org Sun Sep 6 16:48:02 2020 From: pamela.chestek at opensource.org (Pamela Chestek) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:48:02 -0400 Subject: [License-review] License Review Submission In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e5b403f-a00f-661b-5f41-a612b71adcf7@opensource.org> Hi, I'm not sure what happened to the original email. It was sent to the license-review list but held in moderation since it was a new sender, but it doesn't appear in the moderation queue for approval. However, your submission appears to be just the MIT License. Is there any difference I'm missing, other than substituting "My Stuudio" for the word "Software" in the parentheses (which incidentally makes the later reference to capitalized "Software" a bit confusing)? If it is the MIT License, there is nothing to approve. We do not separately approve minor variations of a license, particularly one that hard codes a specific software program into the license. If I am correct, I would appreciate a follow up email formally withdrawing the license for purposes of closing the file. Thanks, Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative On 9/2/2020 10:23 AM, MyStuudio Co wrote: > > Hello, > > I am submitting my license?for my website, *mystuudio.com > *. Please let me know if you need any more > information from me. > > Thanks! > > MyStuudio > > Copyright <2020> > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files > ("MyStuudio"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. > IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY > CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, > TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE > SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matija at suklje.name Tue Sep 22 17:27:09 2020 From: matija at suklje.name (Matija =?utf-8?B?xaB1a2xqZQ==?=) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:27:09 +0200 Subject: [License-review] License Review Submission In-Reply-To: <2e5b403f-a00f-661b-5f41-a612b71adcf7@opensource.org> References: <2e5b403f-a00f-661b-5f41-a612b71adcf7@opensource.org> Message-ID: <15698768.ox1yyk5jKl@hermes> Die 6. 09. 20 et hora 18:48 Pamela Chestek scripsit: > However, > your submission appears to be just the MIT License. Is there any > difference I'm missing, other than substituting "My Stuudio" for the > word "Software" in the parentheses (which incidentally makes the later > reference to capitalized "Software" a bit confusing)? I just checked it against the text stored by SPDX: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html and apart from the use of ?My Stuudio? instead of ?Software?, the only other difference is that in the submitted text the following optional part is omitted in the last paragraph: ?(including the next paragraph)?. I would read that as a variant of the MIT license. cheers, Matija -- gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552 www: https://matija.suklje.name xmpp: matija.suklje at gabbler.org sip: matija_suklje at ippi.fr