Apparently, Russ does not want to approve my license. This is regardless of the fact that my license fully complies with the OSD and is UNIQUE to any other license.
There is a reason I called this license the Modified Artistic License -- it is based on it, but very different than it. I feel my license should be approved, but if the OSI suddenly feels the need to selectively decide whose licenses are worthy and whose are not, regardless of the fact that they comply with the OSD, then that's out of my control, and yours. It seems to me that this kind of thinking is completely counter to the ideas behind open source itself. It is not my intention to create a controversy within this group. I do, however, think you have the right to know what kinds of decisions are being made by OSI, and why. If this is the stance that OSI continues to impose, I will create a nicely worded document about my experience with them, and post to my website, and with all of my future licenses. -Samuel ======================================================================== ==== > Russ, some of the conditions set forth within my license are unique to > my license and cannot be found in any other license. And for good reason. I just noticed this: "You may not charge any fees for the Package itself." The OSD doesn't let you not charge a fee for the Package. People are allowed to sell open source software as long as they comply with the license. So no, unless you want to take that section out, it's not approvable. I've reviewed your license, and quite frankly, it's nothing special. Yes, you have quite a bit of language in there which differs from any existing licenses, but the effect of the language is not different than the language in other licenses. > I want my license associated specifically with my product. That's > very important to me... It's not important to us. Reducing the number of redundant licenses is. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | -----Original Message----- From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:58 AM To: 'Russell Nelson' Subject: RE: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) Russ, some of the conditions set forth within my license are unique to my license and cannot be found in any other license. If I accept an already-existing license, then I am also accepting a license without the unique conditions I wish to impose. Furthermore, many of the other licenses contain MANY conditions that are not suited to my license. I wanted a simple license with a list of simple conditions (that are relevant to the type of product I am offering). Not to mention that this product is very important to me (and the community at large) - I expect it will be a very widely used product and I want my license associated specifically with my product. That's very important to me... -----Original Message----- From: Russell Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:45 AM To: Robert Samuel White Subject: RE: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server) Robert Samuel White writes: > I see. Well, I cannot use any of the existing licenses. They may be > similar, but there is some differences. If you will not approve my > license, even though it fully conforms to the OSD, I will just have to > post a message on my website indicating as such and forget about OSI > approval. No, we will approve it if you insist, but none of us understand why none of the existing licenses will suffice. What problem are you trying to solve that an existing license will not? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | businesses persuade 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
