Subject: Re: License Proliferation Dissatisfaction
From: "Chris DiBona" <cdibona@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:33:04 -0700

I think you might be a little too sensitive. Ranking anything will
make proponents of those licenses ranked lower feel worse. Also,
redundancy and popularity are very different things. There are a lot
of redundant aspects in the licenses in the top tier.

Chris

On 4/22/07, David K. Gasaway <dave@gasaway.org> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 at 19:58, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> > The board has approved the committee's report
> > (http://opensource.org/lpc) and endorses the categorization
> > (http://opensource.org/licenses/category).
>
> While I respect the committee's efforts and conclusions, please
> reconsider the word "redundant".  It is poorly descriptive and even
> inflammatory.  "Licenses with similar goals to more popular licenses"
> or even "Less popular licenses" would probably go over more smoothly.
> Surely the committee can find language that is appropriately dissuasive
> without being offensive.
>
> --
> -:-:- David K. Gasaway
> -:-:- Email: dave@gasaway.org
> -:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org
>
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com