Michael - I agree with you regarding whether this license solves a problem that an existing license does not. I think the drafter will have to explain; otherwise, I would not recommend approval of the Adaptive Public License since it is not attached to a specific project and appears to be an example of the undesired proliferation of licenses. Rod
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Michael Tiemann wrote: > Russ Nelson called for more discuccion of this license, which does look > interesting to me. The OSI board has certainly spent its share of time talking > about license compatibility (or the lack thereof), and this license certainly > encapsulates many of the issues we've discussed. My initial read of this > license is that yes, it does satisfy the letter of the OSD, so that's a Good > Thing. But the larger question that I must always ask is: if/when it becomes > used by multiple third parties, what problems can it solve that other > OSI-approved licenses don't solve. > > What is unclear to me is how this license addresses the question of what > happens when two (or more) parties check the boxes differently in Exhibit A. > Are there any incompatible choices within this framework, or are the "combined" > licenses severable (meaning every individual part remains valid even when some > parts offer different terms)? If the latter, then this is a very interesting > license and I think we should move to approve. If the former, it's not clear > to me that having a name for a license that preserves the incompatibility issue > is all that valuable. In fact, it may be bad. > > Michael Tiemann > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3