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

Mr. Radcliffe, thank you for contributing.

Quoting Radcliffe, Mark (

> The submission will include significant additional changes to
> attribution provision to reflect the other concerns expressed on the
> list. The summary on 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:

> 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 (
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:
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 and, 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