Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:32:05 -0500
Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:32:05 -0500
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> The separate list and channels was just an idea (like working groups). 
> I DO think having a few real-time discussions would be good.  No
> matter.  I think they're trying to get US to organize the two positions
> rather than just hashing it out and then leaving it to them to find
> everything and sort through a few megs of data.  Otherwise its just a
> lot of back and forth on a mail list and then no formal data on how it
> did or did not influence the process.  Are you willing to help put
> together an organized set of arguments collaboratively with others?

Yes.  I suppose this is reasonable, but I will be concerned if a
different process is applied for the next license.  I oppose the
provision in its current form, so I'll first point to some key posts
arguing against it.  My apologies for any misinterpretations or unfair

David Woolley originally questioned the "same size" term (something
changed from AA to GAP)

Michael Tiemann implied the license may be unjustified special pleading,
and noted that many organizations and companies (including Red Hat) have
succeeded on the current model

Nicholas Goodman brought up the still unanswered question of whether two
programs with different GAP brands can be combined
   Rick Moen later elaborated on this in
, wondering whether both logos would have to be displayed and asserting
that this could become a substantial burden.

He also later invoked OSD #10 explicitly
saying that the license should at least have an exception for programs
without a GUI.  John Cowan reiterated this, questioning what would
happen if someone used badgeware code in a commandline app

I noted that GAP could not be seen as a "middle ground", because it is
meant for application to any license (not only the more permissive ones
like MPL)

Rick Moen noted that GAP was different enough from AAL to mandate
separate consideration
   This inspired me to analyze the differences between AAL and GAP, and
conclude they all harmed OSD compliance.
I believe the most harmful addition is "same size",

Ben Tilly first brought up the vital point that OSD #10 didn't exist
when AAL was approved
 In my own opinion, this makes it fundamentally flawed as a
justification now.

This clearly isn't an organized oppose position, but it has all the
points one should contain (in my view).

Matthew Flaschen

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]