Quoting Sean Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board) > are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only > permitting licenses that GPL compatible.
I can't think of a way to say this that's not blunt, so what the hell: Sean, I really think you need to switch to decaf. It should be blindingly obvious to you that the OSI has a very long track record of approving (not "permitting") licences that aren't GPL-compatible. For heaven's sake, read the ever-loving list of approved licences, already! Start with the old BSD licence, whose advertising clause renders it GPL-incompatible, and keep moving down through OSI history to the present. > The GPL is not compatible with widget makers. People employing numerous counter-examples in business would differ. But, Sean, you would have fewer problems with people poking holes in the logic of your GPL-is-bad factual claims if you would stick to the subject, which is OSD-compliance of your licence. Whether your licence is good, bad, or indifferent for for man, beast, and various segments of each is really irrelevant to what you _claimed_ is your goal in raising this topic in the first place -- i.e., evaluation of your licence. So, please skip all the justifications for your licence and sundry criticisms of software ecologies you don't like: They're irrelevant to the subject, and of minor interest at best. -- Cheers, Rick Moen ROMANI, ITE DOMVM! [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
