Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:Who, for example? If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not,
for example), then they only have opinions like other featherless
bipeds, and not a direct say in the matter.
Please refer to Ian Lance Taylor's recent message, where he said: "Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant. I can only recall one. I argued against the license, but I said right from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant."
Note that my statement is no way conflicts with Rick's. Rick said the OSD is largely license-neutral. I agree. My message was in reference to the OSI. That is, the organization, not the set of definitions.
Rick Moen asked the question "Who, for example?" What you said provided an answer to Rick's question. I was the one who stated that I believed the OSD is largely license-neutral, and that I believe this is desirable.
[ ... ]
I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being OSI-approved.
Interesting. Is this because you believe that the OSD is incomplete and that it should disallow more licenses, or is this because you believe that OSI approval should not be the same as "OSD compliant"?
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
