Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:16:42 -0700
Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:16:42 -0700
On 9/26/07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):
>
> > As I said, it's OSD-compliant (I think everyone agrees on this).  But
> > that's clearly not the only criteria OSI uses.
>
> Is that so?  (That's not intended to be rhetorical.)  I see nothing on
> http://www.opensource.org/approval that documents other requirements
> beyond procedural/review steps to assure OSD-compliance.


There have been attempts to add other guidelines in the past to reduce
license proliferation.  Of course those attempts appear to be dead in the
water (past guidelines would probably have mandated the rejection of the GPL
v3).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/26/07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):

> As I said, it's OSD-compliant (I think everyone agrees on this).  But
> that's clearly not the only criteria OSI uses.

Is that so?  (That's not intended to be rhetorical.)  I see nothing on
http://www.opensource.org/approval that documents other requirements
beyond procedural/review steps to assure OSD-compliance.

There have been attempts to add other guidelines in the past to reduce license proliferation.  Of course those attempts appear to be dead in the water (past guidelines would probably have mandated the rejection of the GPL v3).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers