On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Rick Moen wrote: [ ... ]
Sean Chittenden proposed a license for OSD approval. The comments I referred to were in response to his proprosal, and are also related to Larry's proprosed change as mentioned above.
1. The overwhelming consensus, very clearly, was that Sean's licence is
OSD-compliant without regard to the personal dislike that several people
also saw fit to air. (Where were you?)
I followed the discussion with some care, but I didn't especially want to participate in a flame war. There appear to be many people who read this list without posting their opinions on every topic to arise; like others, I lurk until I have something I feel is useful to say.
What's your problem with this?
2. As should likewise have been evident, Larry was trying to address a
longstanding concern of OSD clauses 5&6 being unclear in what is meant
by "discrimination" -- and that the OSI may itself have been a bit fuzzy
one what sort of discrimination makes something open source and what
does not.
Perhaps you should ask Sean whether he thought suggestions that his license should not be granted OSD approval due to being "anti GPL" had little do with his situation or the charter of this list?
I don't certainly need Sean's help to resolve that question. The answer
is perfectly obvious. Wake up, Chuck: There are already _many_
GPL-incompatible licences on the OSI-approved list.
Of course there are. So why give Sean's proposal such a hard time compared to the others?
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."
Guess what, Chuck? This is an open-subscription mailing list. It's a small miracle that we don't have _more_ erroneous declarations of fact, and that Ian believes he remembers only one in this instance.
You asked a question. You got an answer which Ian confirmed by agreeing with my recollection that at least one person claimed Sean's license was not OSD-compliant. In addition, Ian stated that while he thought Sean's license was OSD-compliant, that he did not think that the OSI board should approve Sean's license (to paraphrase "argued against"). If you want to look up the list archives for details, fine.
Hmm. Did what I say above make you feel petulant?
Although I collect dumb and point-missing rhetorical questions, the above
unfortunately just isn't interesting enough. Please try harder.
You misunderstand. I'm not trying to argue with you, or make clever remarks to keep your interest, or anything else other than debating the point at hand, and even that is losing interest because of the ad homiem attacks.
-- -Chuck
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
