Subject: Re: Change ot topic, back to OVPL
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 23:00:38 -0400

Ben Tilly writes:
 > On 8/31/05, Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net> wrote:
 > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Russell Nelson wrote:
 > > > I can't imagine any unproven new license entering on any tier other
 > > > than "not recommended".  Not much of a stick to pound people with if
 > > > they know they're going to get hit no matter what.
 > > 
 > > Wow.  Is this the consensus view of the board?  That the existing set of
 > > licenses most likely can not be improved?
 > 
 > I don't think that that was the message.

It wasn't.  It's just that, well, I agree with Mitchell when she says
that the MPL may have warts and rough edges, but it has been tested by
time.  If we're going to dress up and hire a band for a license, it's
not going to be for some johnny-come-lately license.

But note that that's just one L-P committee member talking.  I haven't
heard anybody else suggest into what tier a newly approved license
should be placed.  Not word one.  Unsolved problem.  Suggestions
should go to license-proliferation-discuss since they're dealing with
tiering.

-- 
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |                       |     you know what not to do.