Subject: Re: For Approval: MN Open Content License 1.0
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@staszic.waw.pl>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:00:07 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 28 of December 2004 01:50, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> I skimmed through it, and didn't see anything that appeared to violate
> the OSD -- though including OSD certification as part of the license is
> a bit unusual, to say the least!

Zope Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/zpl.php) have similar
notice and there was a license with almost identical sentence but I can't
find it now.

> You might need to make that an
> appendix, since otherwise there might be a strange race condition in
> that we can't approve it 'as is' since at that time its not
> accurate....

It's not a big deal so I can even remove the notice if it make approval
impossible.

> One area that could be clarified; in Section 1.2, you should probably
> explicitly state that they have to do at least one (1) of the options
> a-d, rather than potentially having to do all of them.

Thought that "or" after each option is enought but changed[1] as you
suggested.

> However, I would like to understand exactly what problem you are trying
> to solve that isn't well addressed by existing licenses.   In
> particular, how does this handle documentation or other forms of
> content better than, say, the AFL?

The ASF does not require the source to be distributed along with the work.

____
[1] The newes verion of the license is available at
http://cvs.projektcode.org/view.cgi/misc/mn-ocl.txt

- --
Pozdrawiam                                          _     _
.o. | Wasal Jasnie Oswieconej Pani Informatyki    o' \,=./ `o
..o | Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz <mina86*tlen.pl>    (o o)
ooo +--<jid:mina86*jabber.org>---<tlen:mina86>---ooO--(_)--Ooo--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB0ZEfUyzLALfG3x4RAni7AJ4gd5qNrmWwdBqFu5WuLOlDhRSCGACgifpa
DmkjHSMc3gQ+f2CoCdH32no=
=lkq6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----