Michael - I agree with you regarding whether this license solves a problem
that an existing license does not. I think the drafter will have to
explain; otherwise, I would not recommend approval of the Adaptive Public
License since it is not attached to a specific project and appears to be
an example of the undesired proliferation of licenses.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Michael Tiemann wrote:

> Russ Nelson called for more discuccion of this license, which does look
> interesting to me.  The OSI board has certainly spent its share of time talking
> about license compatibility (or the lack thereof), and this license certainly
> encapsulates many of the issues we've discussed.  My initial read of this
> license is that yes, it does satisfy the letter of the OSD, so that's a Good
> Thing.  But the larger question that I must always ask is: if/when it becomes
> used by multiple third parties, what problems can it solve that other
> OSI-approved licenses don't solve.
> What is unclear to me is how this license addresses the question of what
> happens when two (or more) parties check the boxes differently in Exhibit A.
> Are there any incompatible choices within this framework, or are the "combined"
> licenses severable (meaning every individual part remains valid even when some
> parts offer different terms)?  If the latter, then this is a very interesting
> license and I think we should move to approve.  If the former, it's not clear
> to me that having a name for a license that preserves the incompatibility issue
> is all that valuable.  In fact, it may be bad.
> Michael Tiemann
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to