Subject: RE: License Proliferation Committee Response
From: "Laura Majerus" <>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:36:33 -0700

 Sun, 4 Sep 2005 19:36:33 -0700
All, I have been on a family vacation this weekend and am just now reading through the
backlog of license discuss messages. You guys got active all of a sudden. I'm writing
this on a Treo, so forgive typing misrakes.

I regularly read license-discuss but don't post much because I want to be guided by
the community and not vice versa.   Russ is the head of the OSI license approval committee
and makes recommendations to the board based on comments from this list about licenses
to approve. I see Larry's suggestions concerning the OSL as related to aproval and not
the LP committe's first project (i.e., tiering). Our second project is a licensing wizard.
We just got some programming volunteers for this. I see the LP committee doing other
projects down the road intended to chip away at license proliferation issues. . It's
silly to think that tiering will solve this issue. It's just a step toward addressing
people's concerns. One concern is that newbies have trouble picking licenses going forward
and that's all thqat tiering is supposed to address.

The LP committee is working on getting a first cut of tiering factors for the LP-discuss
list to comment on. I will certainly post here to alert you all when we post our first
effort. I expect *lots* of discussion when we post that.

Feel free to post questions and I'll happily try to answer them.


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	David Barrett []
Sent:	Sat Sep 03 13:21:17 2005
Subject:	License Proliferation Committee Response

Laura --

Given all the comments that everyone has raised, can you summarize how 
the License Proliferation committee intends to respond?  Or if you can't 
right now, can you give the process that you will follow to come up with 
a response?

Speaking only for myself, I'm concerned by the lack of participation of 
the license discuss committee or the OSI board (with Russell being the 
one notable and welcome exception) in what appears to be a rather 
important issue to many.


IRS Circular 230  Disclosure:  To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice in this communication (including
attachments) is not intended or written by Fenwick & West LLP to be used, and cannot
be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
(ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential.
 It is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed
or by their designee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and/or
Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 and delete or destroy any copy of
this message.