Please hold off on submitting this while we determine certain compatibility
issues internally at google. We'll engage with osi in a couple of weeks,
likely as not. I would also point out that we're uncomfortable with make
licesne proliferation worse and in the event we do submit it, we will want a
couple of changes to how OSI does licenses.
1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license.
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We
are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
3) We need to know OSI's current corporate status. I heard that osi was a
california corporation again, but I would like to know, from the group, that
this is true for 2010 and that there aren't any issues there.
This might sound stridant, but I think that OSI needs to be more open about
its workings to retain credibility in the space.
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com