Subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
From: Rick Moen <>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:25:19 -0800

Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (

> Rick Moen wrote:
> >Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (
> >  
> >
> >The defined process OSI as an organisation long ago established requires
> >as a prerequisite that the user of a licence submit their licences for
> >approval.  It does not as a body engage in theoretical examinations of
> >licences that _might_ be used and _might_ be evualted _if_ they were
> >ever submitted.
> >  
> Yet this is at least a policy formal or informal that if I were to 
> submit a license which prohibits redistribution of source and mandates 
> DRM that it would be rejected.  Thus the discussion is appropriate (and 
> I would say probably more appropriate than a bunch of hackers discussing 
> trademark law).

It's certainly appropriate, and we've been having it.  I was just taking
care to say that it's not to be confused with OSI's process -- a point
that seemed worth making, since the only thing submitted, to my
knowledge, from that market segment was not a licence, but rather a
patch against some unspecified subset of 58 approved licences.

> I did not mean to say the GAP or Exhibit B, only the above referenced
> linked license which is less intrusive than most of the Exhibit Bs
> that I've seen, granted I don't particularly LIKE it.

I think it's telling that Suominen's Attribution Assurance Licence
seldom seems to get actually used, and only for obscure projects -- nor
mentioned except as a debate point when someone wants to cajole OSI.