Subject: Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process
From: "Zac Bowling" <zac@zacbowling.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:53:20 -0500

Yes, it would be bad to add more qualifiers.

I'm just really annoyed because the license approval process is being
abused lately with tons of submitions of really trivial variations of
the same permissive licenses that are already approved by the OSI. I
don't want to offend anyone that may of submitted a license because of
the license submittions may have been legit.

I believe its mostly being done to be disruptive for what seems only
to make some type of point rather then for any real reason. On
Wikipedia, I would be tagging as WP:POINT.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point)

Zac Bowling

On 10/12/07, Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, so Zac, nothing personal, but don't you htink osi's role and
> actions are confusing enough without adding yet another license
> qualifier?
>
> Chris
>
> On Oct 12, 2007 2:11 PM, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Zac Bowling (zac@zacbowling.com):
> >
> > > How about defining a difference between "OSI Approved" and "OSI Compatible"
> >
> > Candidate answer:   Because part of the point of having a formal
> > definition in the first place is to encourage convergence onto a limited
> > number of relatively well known licences, so that the vast majority of
> > the population who don't enjoy minutely reading such things don't have
> > to worry about unpredictable effects from bizarre variations.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
>


-- 
Zac Bowling
http://www.zacbowling.com
---

I support Mozilla Firefox.
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliates&id=12079&t=1