Tzeng, Nigel H. scripsit:
Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd
just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone
because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list of
popular, widely used or have strong communities on
Count my vote as NO for the same reason that Nigel gave.
Count me also as frustrated that OSI continues to silence the arguments
against your license categorizations!
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
Incorrect. The only part I'm specifically against is the section:
The following OSI-approved licenses are popular, widely used, or have
strong communities:
[Insert the current list of popular/widely used/strong community
licenses]
The reason I am opposed to this specific part is
Hi, all-
This is a deliberately small, unambitious proposal to simplify and
improve how the OSI-approved licenses are presented on the OSI
website.
The goal of the proposal is to make http://opensource.org/licenses/
more useful for newcomers who are trying to learn about open source
licensing
Happy to take suggestions on the in essence part- trying to capture
the basics in one sentence.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The Open Source Licensing page
Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of the alphabetical list
here.
G.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The Open Source Licensing page (replacing the
current
6 matches
Mail list logo
