Hi,
>>It is
>>thus safe to say that the licence you speak of is the
>>one we are going to use ... without voting ... by
>>consensus! ;-)
>
> Without objection ;-)
I've got no objection to the GPL with EXCEPTION, as we've seen posted here
and at the site.
But, I've got a STRONG objections to calling this up for a FORMAL VOTE at
this point in time.... I want to delay the voting still.
No less than 15 seconds before seeing another message in my mail box (snip
above) I sent a license confirmation like posting to a group of FREE
Software advocates who exist mainly to discuss license issues and whatnot.
So, I'd like to see what happens in these "out-of-house" (so to speak)
discussions. So, I'm trying to make some earnest progress on these fronts.
Please bear with me.
I'd like to NOT have a RUSH to vote to APPROVE what we got just yet. Unless,
we do it in a multi-staged process. Case in point: we are reaching a good
consensus on the license now (GPL+Exception). We could yet run into trouble,
perhaps (FUD) when it comes to our endeavor of "LEANING upon the METACARD
engine" yet using a GPL code base. ??? And we might run into further
problems in other fronts as we do the human interface and want it to be part
of the suite offered by MetaCard. The co-mingling of GPL and PROPRIETARY
licenses is something that needs full ADVANCE awareness, and it isn't yet a
bridge that we've scouted and accounted for just yet. I'm sorta sure a
solution lurks, but I'd like to have it KNOWN before we need to cast out one
license already locked in stone....
Thanks for the extra time.
Mark Rauterkus
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
