Hi Russell. I am still hoping to get approval for the Adaptive Public License. I have attached our follow-up from the last License Committee Report.
--Carmen Leeming

Carmen Leeming writes:
> Title: Adaptive Public License
> Submission: > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:6913:200305:bogcdnbbhnfbgpdeahob
> License: http://www.mamook.net/APL.html
> > This license was submitted in May 2003. I checked in June to make sure > that the license had entered the submission process, and received a > reply indicating that it was received and was currently under review. I > wrote again in November and never heard back.

Sorry, your license fell through the cracks.  I have no automated
system for tracking license approvals.  On a quick reading, I don't
see any problem with it.

May I suggest that the CUA Public License use a particular form of the
Adaptive Public License instead?

-- --My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com | Coding in Python Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | is like 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | sucking on sugar. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Sweet! -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Russell Nelson wrote:

I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
for the current set of licenses under discussion.  If anybody
disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so


Restricts license termination to only if the original work is alleged
to infringe a patent.

Title: OSL/AFL version 2.1 submitted for approval
Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:8002:fdhkogbdmecjfdifioea
License: www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1.html
License: www.rosenlaw.com/afl2.1.html
 John Cowan gives it the thumbs up with no comments.
 The redline is at   www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.1-redline.pdf
Recommend: approval.


There is much discussion spent deciding whether NASA can copyright
software at all.  The license itself says that no copyright is claimed
in the United States.

Title: NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA) version 1.3
Original Submission:
 John Cowan did a complete re-review of it and found that the
 previous concerns had been addressed.
Recommend: approval.


The author wants to control software which is merely written to work
in conjunction with this software.

Title: Open Project Public License (OPPL) Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7926:200403:flibooikigifnhkciclb
License: http://nextco.net/~matti/awaiting_approval.htm
John Cowan is not enthusiastic about it.
Neither is Alex Rousskov.
Recommend: turn it down.


Title: Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7933:okcnnifeagbhadopkkoe
License: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.html
Ernie and Rod both point out that since the only change is removing
the patent termination, that that doesn't affect its compliance
with OSD.
Recommend: approval.

-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to