Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:58 -0800

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):

> I don't think appealing to OSD #6 is necessary.  I think the license
> undoubtedly violates OSD #10 (someone just suggested modifying OSD #10
> so it wouldn't!), has OSD #3 problems, and would result in massive
> license proliferation if truly approved as a "generic" provision.
[...]
> The Board can't approve a license (or provision) different from the one
> submitted.  For that reason, it's a bit futile for us to discuss a
> different license.  

I concur:  OSD#10 is a sufficient reason why a MPL 1.1 + GAP licence
is not OSD-compliant.  (As a reminder, one cannot simply assume the
result of patching any licence with GAP is always the same.)  And OSI's
process says yes or no to licence texts as submitted.  So, by any
rational measure, we're done.

Of course, this is the Internet, where flogging deceased equines is a
way of life.  ;->

-- 
Cheers,     "Learning Java has been a slow and tortuous process for me.  Every 
Rick Moen   few minutes, I start screaming 'No, you fools!' and have to go
rick@linuxmafia.com       read something from _Structure and Interpretation of
            Computer Programs_ to de-stress."   -- The Cube, www.forum3000.org