On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM, dmg <d...@uvic.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation,
>>> so we cannot say if a given variation is approved.
>> From "not every", it does not follow logically "not any". I don't doubt
>> the premise is true, but the second does not follow from it alone.
>> But perhaps there is no need to go all the way, for minor differences
>> and existing use...: it is not approved, but sometimes it is discussed
>> and no reasons are raised, which would probably make it rejected.
>> (apart from reasons unrelated to its FOSS appropriate status)
>> With all other disclaimers needed... but if it's true, perhaps there is a
>> way to say it.
> You can't be expected to review _every_ variation, but you can review
> the ones that occur most frequently that are almost a match for the
> license.

If that could be data driven, and not anecdote-driven, I'd be open to
it. What I don't want is having to review and post on the website
every trivial variation anyone bothers to email to license-discuss.

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to