Subject: OVPL (was Re: License Committee Report for September 2005)
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:07:58 +0100



--On 12 September 2005 02:00 -0400 Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:

Re OVPL, with numbering added by me:

> Recommend: rejection if you think that the "Readable" criteria means
>     that a derived license should minimize changes even to the point
>    of not renumbering sections. (1)
> Recommend: approval if you think that the "Readable" criteria means
>     that the license *itself* should be readable even if it has to
>     make changes with no legal import. (2)
> Recommend: deferral if you want to wait to see what Simon and Alex's
>     negotiations produce in the way of changes to the CDDL. (3)

I'd be interested to hear people's views on which one of these should be
done. I have heard no support for (1) or (3) on this list other than
from Russ.

Alex