Subject: Re: License Committee Report for September 2005
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:39:34 +0100



--On 08 September 2005 14:08 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@quinthar.com> 
wrote:

>> The OVPL consists of two sets of changes to the CDDL.  One set changes
>> policy, and the other set changes implementation.  I have suggested
>> that in order for the OVPL to not be duplicative and to increase its
>> readability, its implementation changes should actually go into the
>> CDDL.  I've asked the submittor to work with the CDDL stewards to get
>> those improvements into the CDDL.  I have not gotten any cooperation.
>> Instead, he has asked me to submit the OVPL as-is.
>
> Incidentally, I think this is a fair summary, but I would suggest
> changing "I have not gotten any cooperation" to "Alex has made private
> and public requests to the CDDL stewards but received no response."

David B states it correctly though I think you have got cooperation from me
- I have asked the CDDL to respond to your suggestion (either positively or
negatively). However, I do not think the CDDL folks should feel obliged to
respond, nor do I think license approval should be contingent upon their
response (reasons set out earlier). Given you have seen my (public) request
to the CDDL folks to do so, I would be grateful if you would withdraw the
"I have not gotten any cooperation" line, at least in respect of the OVPL
folks.

Alex