Quoting Alex Rousskov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > ... Or the undocumented(?) charter of this list can be expanded. Or > any off-topic posts should be moderated out.
1. The list isn't moderated. I'm sure Rusl and others have better things to do, so they trust to people to behave themselves. 2. The list's charter is implied fairly clearly by the language on http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval : Getting a License Approved [...] o Prepare an email with three sections as described in the next three paragraphs. Send that email to the license-discuss mailing list (license-discuss at our domain name, opensource.org). The subject of your message should be "For Approval:" followed by the name of your license. o Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the license-discuss understand and review your license. o Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses. Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined works? Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your proposed license?. o Include the plain text version of your license at the end of the email, either as an insertion or as an attachment. o You are invited to follow discussion of the licenses by subscribing to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This mailing-list is archived here. o If license-discuss mailing list members find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition, they will work with you to resolve the problems. Similarly, if we see a problem, we will work with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. o As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license issues. o Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below. Although it would be nice to have a list-information Web page with more information than http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 has [1], absent that, the membership are glad to remind people of the charter whenever off-topic threads become too (1) voluminous, (2) heated, (3) obnoxious, and or (4) un-amusing -- exactly as with other unmoderated on-line forums. So, when the list regulars (or, a-fortiori, Russ the listadmin) suggest that people cool it with the off-topic digressions, please heed them, OK? There _are_ a number of other places to discuss licensing without specific connection to OSI approval -- e.g., debian-legal and the Free Software Business mailing list come to mind. If none of those turn out to be suitable, I can recommend some software to start a new mailing list that is -- all of it open source. ;-> [1] That page's link to "eFAQ" is a mailto link that _should_ send back a FAQ for this mailing list. Apparently one hasn't yet been written (see below). An opportunity, perhaps? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at ns.crynwr.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: ezmlm-manage: fatal: unable to open text/faq: file does not exist -- Cheers, The cynics among us might say: "We laugh, Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now! [EMAIL PROTECTED] MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
