Subject: Re: Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:53:24 -0800

Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver@buni.org):

> Please calm down.

I was slightly vexed by being misquoted, but otherwise have seldom been
less bothered in general.

> Rather than defend yourself ....

I'm sorry, but you seem to have attributed to my post something not
present in it:  I said nothing promoting the merit of either myself
personally (having not been aware of being personally under discussion)
or of any of my earlier statements.  I merely pointed out that Mr. Tilly
had fundamentally misrepresented the latter -- and then corrected what
he said.  Again.

> can you perhaps try to stay on the topic please?

If by "the topic" you mean Socialtext's GAP patch paragraph, my OSD#6
analysis of same _was_ recapped inline, in my immediately preceding
post.  Please see.  Or, alternatively:
 
> I can't sort what of the below has anything to do with this:
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

I'm mystified that you could have missed this part, especially since you
literally quoted it in its entirety, but will be glad to copy and paste
it, once:

   Concerning GAP (in distinction to MuleSource's "Exhibit B"), I pointed
   out that a licensor invoking its wording...

      a display of the same size as found in the [original code]
      released by the original licensor

   ...could require all derivative works to sport a 500-point logo +
   company name + URL display, specifically to make commercial use
   impractical.  I.e., the lack of any limit on size and promience
   (completely aside from the OSD#10 issue) provides a method for
   licensor to effectively prevent competing commercial use.

The reasoning should be familiar to you, given that you said something
extremely similar on December 12, right here:

http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/opensource/2006/12/12/The-Buni-Special-Attribution-License-Proposal