On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 08:29 p, Topper, Anthony wrote: > We understand the desire to have one "Common Public License" with > no messy > variations. We think it is an excellent license, hence our desire > for our own small variation of it. The issue that had our > attorney's concerned was IBM as the sole steward of change and NY > as the applicable law.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like the OSI should encourage or require licenses that have such specific language to be submitted in template form, or to at the least 'approve' the template - and require that derivatives of the template, modified as templates are intended to be modified, not be restricted. Otherwise, there is the 'one license per package' problem that the OSD already attempts to prevent. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
