On Tuesday 26 February 2002 03:31 pm, Russell Nelson wrote: > I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these > licenses:
Okay, quick examination: > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk I see no need to excercise my power of "veto" over this license. It clearly passes the OSD. But, and this is a big but, why does every trivial variant of an existing license need discussion? A far better approach is to institutionalize license templates. Make every approved license be in template form, so that companies like OpenE don't need to submit trivialities like this. > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi Mainly a ditto of the above. It's more than just a trivial change to an existing license, but still quite simple. And I do seem to recall a brief discussion on this. Not willing to check the archives, I must assume my memory is in error. > http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc I definitely recall a discussion on this one. Am I mistaken? > This list was set up so that "outsiders" could have veto power over > licenses. Veto power? You're kidding, aren't you? Where was this veto power when the APSL was being discussed? I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3