I'd reccomend bugging George Hunka, [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it
has been approved, then bugging him (volunteer as he may be) is the
correct thing; if it's not been approved, it's not a given that anyone
in charge of the OSI will actually say so on this list so private
communication seems the only recourse.
It's also obvious that the order of processing is directed at
corporations, *not* organizations friendly to open source - notice that
the last several licenses on the official list aren't even on the radar
in the message you cite below as [2]. Two of those are from
corporations whose need for a new license is questionable at best.
Since the OSI's word is taken as Truth by some (if not most) interested
in using only open source software, or in discussing what is and is not
open source software, it is appropriate IMO to call the OSI on these
failings, rather than dismiss them as 'overworked volunteers.' They're
volunteers who purport to represent me, and thousands of people like
me, and it reasonable to expect them to do so precisely because they
volunteered.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote:
> The W3C's request for consideration is going on 18 months now [1]. 10
> months ago, it appears it was approved [2], but I've yet to see an
> email to this affect myself (someone else dug up that reference), nor
> has the W3C license been added. It's been considered a
> "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses" since 1998.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/0017.html
> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg02310.html
> [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> --
> Joseph Reagle Jr. http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
> W3C Policy Analyst mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/Signature
> W3C XML Encryption Chair http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
>
>
Matthew Weigel
Research Systems Programmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
