Rick Moen wrote:
begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
This has the beneficial effect of making it
harder to create Yet Another open source license.
I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
opinion, not a certainty nor natural law.
Licence compatibility issues
begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
'Discouraging proliferation' != 'making it harder to create'.
This attitude seems equivalent to saying, 'Okey, we have all the
good licencing ideas there ever will be, close the doors'
Spot the irrelevant straw-man argument. No points.
--
Rick Moen wrote:
To be really explicit, then: You indulged the time-honoured
pastime of setting up a caricature of your interlocutor's
position and then knocking it down.
If I did, I assure you it was unintentional. :-) If anything,
I think you may have been guilty of this before I, since
begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
Or, to quote Russ exactly, This has the beneficial effect of making
it harder to create Yet Another open source license.
The correctness of Russ's statement as posted should be apparent. I
fail to see the utility of debate.
I agree with keeping the
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
This has the beneficial effect of making it harder to create Yet
Another open source license.
I agree with keeping the number of essentially identical licences to
a minimum. I do *not* agree with accomplishing that by discouraging
people
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Given the current process, that is most likely true. But since
I do not believe the current process is as good as it could be,
I do not consider that truth to be an absolute one.
Neither do I.
Possible improvement #1: if the load is too
begin Rodent of Unusual Size quotation:
Well, then, I guess you fail to see it.
We concur, for suitable values of it.
That does not make the statement correct, however.
Also true: Its accuracy may be assessed independently. (I can
recommend some good books on formal logic, should you be
Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the
current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul.
Okey, I can go along with that. :-)
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
I think we agree on everything but the value of trying to get the
current process more effective over doing a complete overhaul.
Okey, I can go along with that. :-)
To clarify my statements (I didn't expect agreement or I wouldn't have
Russell Nelson wrote:
This has the beneficial effect of making it
harder to create Yet Another open source license.
I continue to feel that the 'benefit' is a matter of
opinion, not a certainty nor natural law. Therefore
I continue to object -- courteously -- to remarks that
take it as a
On Thursday 30 August 2001 18:41, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
Yes, that's the point. Russ got onto me awhile back for complaining
about the OSI not listening, without sending mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our request is pending from January 14 2000 [1], which complied with the
stated policy of
On Thursday 30 August 2001 23:53, Russell Nelson wrote:
Why didn't you tell me?? Because if you don't bother asking us how
the license approval is going, you obviously don't care. If you
don't care, we don't care.
I fear this style of collaberation isn't as productive as *anyone*
Why is this license
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice-2612) not listed on
the OSI list of approved licenses
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/)?
Actions the W3C would apparently like to take - including hosting Amaya
on sourceforge.net - depend upon this approval, which has
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Johnson wrote:
The page you referenced is not the page containing the software license. This
is a better link:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software-19980720
Thanks.
As to why it has not yet been approved, I couldn't tell you. I
understand that
Matthew C. Weigel writes:
Why is this license
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice-2612) not listed on
the OSI list of approved licenses
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/)?
Why isn't it listed? Because it's not approved.
Why isn't it approved? Because we got hideously
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Russell Nelson wrote:
Hey, when did you do that? 25 April 2001.
Why didn't you tell me?? Because if you don't bother asking us how
the license approval is going, you obviously don't care. If you
don't care, we don't care.
16 matches
Mail list logo
