I don't mean to whine, but
I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these licenses: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. You've got it, but if you don't use it, you'll lose it. It's not fair to make license authors wait for something that doesn't happen. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 06:31 p, Russell Nelson wrote: I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these licenses: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk Identical to the Apache Software License... assuming that description is correct (there is neither a URL nor an available attachment), I don't see a need to comment. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi Looks fine, although it's worth pointing out that they might have to go to court to get 'bug fixes' - what one person calls a bug, another person calls a feature (so fixing that bug might be removing that feature). I think. It's hard to tell, since I can't find that post in my archives and your webbing software helpfully removes all attachments (like the license). http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc separate message This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. That statement neither reflects the original stated purpose for this list, nor the manner in which it's been used in the past by the OSI. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 03:31 pm, Russell Nelson wrote: I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these licenses: Okay, quick examination: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk I see no need to excercise my power of veto over this license. It clearly passes the OSD. But, and this is a big but, why does every trivial variant of an existing license need discussion? A far better approach is to institutionalize license templates. Make every approved license be in template form, so that companies like OpenE don't need to submit trivialities like this. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi Mainly a ditto of the above. It's more than just a trivial change to an existing license, but still quite simple. And I do seem to recall a brief discussion on this. Not willing to check the archives, I must assume my memory is in error. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc I definitely recall a discussion on this one. Am I mistaken? This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. Veto power? You're kidding, aren't you? Where was this veto power when the APSL was being discussed? I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:22 p, Cees de Groot wrote: Thanks, Russ - I was about to whine myself about the lack of commentary of the above one (the Squeak License). The webpages 'promise' a review when you post the license, but all I got back was a private mail from Guido with some comments (thanks, Guide), and nothing else. A lot happens because someone starts; it would have been nice if we could all have seen his response because that might have catalyzed on opinion in our own minds. Well, see my response under a separate subject (which should now actually go tot the right address). At the very least, the website should be modified to reflect actual practice (we'll post the license and maybe someone cares to comment)... This is a volunteer list and we contribute as we are willing and able. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 08:03 p, David Johnson wrote: I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval. It is. On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that a license was recently tabled because there was too much disagreement on this list over how Open Source Fresh(notm) it was, so perhaps this list is being accorded more respect than it was in days past. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: I don't mean to whine, but
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 06:45 p, Matthew C.Weigel wrote: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm- cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk Identical to the Apache Software License... assuming that description is correct (there is neither a URL nor an available attachment), I don't see a need to comment. There is a URL right above the line you quoted. DB ...An HTML version of our proposed license can be found at: DB http://www.opene.org/osi/license.html DB DB The license is identical to the Apache Software License... Regards, David Blevins -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
David Johnson wrote: But, and this is a big but, why does every trivial variant of an existing license need discussion? A far better approach is to institutionalize license templates. I agree; this surely would save everyone a lot of time and confusion. http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc I definitely recall a discussion on this one. Am I mistaken? Yes, you are. :) At least, there hasn't been any discussion in this group (until the last post of Matthew C. Weigel, that is); perhaps it was discussed in private. Regards, Marc Rauw -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
Thanks, Matt. Matthew C. Weigel writes: This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. That statement neither reflects the original stated purpose for this list, Not in so many words, no. nor the manner in which it's been used in the past by the OSI. If that's true, then you should be able to find a license which was approved even though the consensus of the list was that it was not OSD-compliant. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
David Johnson writes: This list was set up so that outsiders could have veto power over licenses. Veto power? You're kidding, aren't you? Where was this veto power when the APSL was being discussed? Hehe. It didn't exist. The APSL debacle is why it exists now. I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be the main clearinghouse for license approval. Not main, but part of the path. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | Crypto without a threat Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | model is like cookies 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | without milk. Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: I don't mean to whine, but
Russell Nelson scripsit: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc I have verified the Edustructures license as a Jabber variant (as claimed) and the Network Appliance license as a CPL variant (as claimed). They should be fast-tracked. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --_The Hobbit_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
