Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:26:08 -0800

Mr. Radcliffe, thank you for contributing.

Quoting Radcliffe, Mark (Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com):

> The submission will include significant additional changes to
> attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the
> list. The summary on buni.org was particularly helpful in focusing us on
> the problems with GAP and we want to thank those who contributed to it.

OSI President Michael Tiemann also had some contructive suggestions,
which I commend to your attention:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7893415.html
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Fwd%3A-FW%3A-For-Approval%3A-Generic-Attribution-Provision--p7900005.html

> The reason that neither Socialtext nor the other companies have adopted
> the draft attribution provision is that they do not want to repeatedly
> change their license.

Since you're talking to Ross and the other people at Socialtext, you
might remind them of Ross's promise to change the erroneous claim on
their wiki (http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix)
asserting that they've submitted Socialtext Public License's attribution
clause to OSI for approval, when obviously they never have.

Eight days ago, Ross said he'd fix that:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-SocialText-license-discussion--call-for-closure-of-arguments-p8515354.html
However, he hasn't yet.

> I think that it might be useful to correct some mistakes about my role
> in OSI and attribution:
> 
> 1. I advised SugarCRM on its attribution provision which was released in
> October 2004. This date was prior to my consideration to be General
> Counsel of the OSI. I first applied to be General Counsel in December,
> 2004 and was appointed in January 2005.
> 
> 2. I am not an officer of OSI and OSI has never taken a position on
> attribution so it is incorrect to suggest that my advice on attribution
> is inconsistent with OSI's position. In particular, the AAL had already
> been adopted before I became the General Counsel so OSI had already
> approved an attribution based license. I have been very open with the
> Board from the beginning about my role in developing attribution and my
> belief that it is consistent with the OSD.
> 
> 3. The services I provide to OSI and my work as Chair of Committee C
> reviewing the GPLv3 are provided pro bono. In other words, for free. In
> fact, my law firm has provided over $100,000 in legal services at no
> charge  to the open source community through our work with the OSI and
> the FSF.

Speaking for myself, I never made the above assertions about you -- but
I do have two questions on related matters, since you're here:

In http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4124 and
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/index.php?p=3430, reporter David Berlind says 
"Radcliffe has also authored some of these [Exhibit B] licenses", and
"has also served as legal counsel to the companies coming up with these
hybrid licenses."  Is that correct?

Would you mind letting the mailing list know which MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B
licences (if any) you've had a part in drafting, and which (if any) of
those firms you've had business dealings with since becoming General
Counsel for OSI?

Thank you for your time.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com