Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu>
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
crediting:

David Woolley originally questioned the "same size" term (something
changed from AA to GAP)
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11904:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).

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
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn)

Nicholas Goodman brought up the still unanswered question of whether two
programs with different GAP brands can be combined
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).
   Rick Moen later elaborated on this in
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12034:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
, 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
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11992:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm),
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
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:11996:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm).

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)
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12080:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm)

Rick Moen noted that GAP was different enough from AAL to mandate
separate consideration
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp).
   This inspired me to analyze the differences between AAL and GAP, and
conclude they all harmed OSD compliance.
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp)
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
(http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12135:dlaoeafkbfdnkpjnojmk).
 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]