Sorry if this seems pedantic...
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Convergence. Despite some degree of internal conflict, the final
nail was really the result of independent external resolution of
many of the issues we had sought to address. As of the last meeting
From: Carter Bullard [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two
different legal documents are functionally equivalent?
[DJW:] As I understand it, they are determining
whether the licence is a member of the set of
possible "open
Dave,
A note of clarification.
Although I need not speak for OSI, I am confident that they would say that
they are NOT acting as legal counsel for the drafters of the submitted
licenses. Instead, the idea of getting a license approved or of discussing
the licenses on this list is more about
on Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:30:15AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry if this seems pedantic...
Not at all, quite appreciated. I have trouble keeping up with
everything and appreciate the watchful eye.
Thanks.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
From David Johnson:
With all due and considerable respect to Lawrence and the rest of the
OSI,
this is not a criteria for prioritizing the list. It's a statement that
it
might be better to discourage similar licenses. I disagree strongly.
And I'll have to disagree with your disagreement
Gentle people,
What I fail to understand is what is the OSI's purpose
in certifying Open Source licenses.
Is the OSI trying to make a determination that two
different legal documents are functionally equivalent?
I hope not, as this is not only a legal impossibility,
but out of the scope of
For that matter, the Alternate Route Open Source License and the Alternate
Route Library Open Source License are very similar to the GPL and LGPL
license. In fact, the FSF has given the Washington State Department of
Transportation permission to base our license on theirs. We have been
waiting
Perhaps the OSI board should have "cherry-picked" different licenses for
review than the ones it did select. Whenever judgment calls are made, there
is the opportunity to make them wrongly. I can only assure you that there
has been no intention to harm any contributor.
I am attaching the list
Lawrence E. Rosen writes:
One thing I ask you to consider: License review, even for what you think are
simple licenses, is not taken lightly by the *volunteer* OSI board. The
board has to read the licenses carefully. There is no such thing as a "slam
dunk" approval.
Sure there is:
From Lawrence E. Rosen:
My own suggestions for prioritizing are these:
* Is the license sufficiently different from one of the licenses already
approved that we shouldn't simply encourage the submitter to use another
already-approved license?
With all due and considerable respect to Lawrence
10 matches
Mail list logo
