Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:32:18 -0700
Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:32:18 -0700
On 9/30/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Chris Travers [mailto:chris.travers@gmail.com] wrote:
> > We should be in the business of approving licenses, not approving
> submitters of licenses.
>
> I have not said that Microsoft should be rejected as a submitterjust
> because
> of its own personality. The concern is not about Microsoft but about the
> protection of rights of users that the users of these licenses (the
> licensees) could legitimately assume (but could reveal not being
> protected,
> because of rights that have not been explicitly granted in the licence).



Every case you mention has absolutely nothing to do with this license.  Do
we really want to turn every FSF-submitted license into a debate on the
commitment of the FSF to the basic freedoms they profess to hold dear?  That
is exactly what will happen if dislike of the source of a license is a
factor in its approval.

I see no reason to treat Microsoft differently than any other submitting
party.  This clause is no different from that which exists in the "official"
OSI variant of the BSD license.  THerefore, if we are to reject Microsoft's
license on these grounds, I think we should hold the BSD licenses to this
clause and reject all of them which have similar nonendorsement clauses.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/30/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Chris Travers [mailto:chris.travers@gmail.com] wrote:
> We should be in the business of approving licenses, not approving
submitters of licenses.

I have not said that Microsoft should be rejected as a submitterjust because
of its own personality. The concern is not about Microsoft but about the
protection of rights of users that the users of these licenses (the
licensees) could legitimately assume (but could reveal not being protected,
because of rights that have not been explicitly granted in the licence).


Every case you mention has absolutely nothing to do with this license.  Do we really want to turn every FSF-submitted license into a debate on the commitment of the FSF to the basic freedoms they profess to hold dear?  That is exactly what will happen if dislike of the source of a license is a factor in its approval.

I see no reason to treat Microsoft differently than any other submitting party.  This clause is no different from that which exists in the "official" OSI variant of the BSD license.  THerefore, if we are to reject Microsoft's license on these grounds, I think we should hold the BSD licenses to this clause and reject all of them which have similar nonendorsement clauses.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers