Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 17:37:10 -0700

Quoting Sean Chittenden (sean@chittenden.org):

> Right now the members of this list (but hopefully not the OSI Board)
> are bent on arguing that OSI and the OSD is responsible for only
> permitting licenses that GPL compatible.

I can't think of a way to say this that's not blunt, so what the hell:
Sean, I really think you need to switch to decaf.

It should be blindingly obvious to you that the OSI has a very long
track record of approving (not "permitting") licences that aren't
GPL-compatible.  For heaven's sake, read the ever-loving list of
approved licences, already!  Start with the old BSD licence, whose
advertising clause renders it GPL-incompatible, and keep moving down
through OSI history to the present.

> The GPL is not compatible with widget makers.

People employing numerous counter-examples in business would differ.
But, Sean, you would have fewer problems with people poking holes in the
logic of your GPL-is-bad factual claims if you would stick to the
subject, which is OSD-compliance of your licence.  Whether your licence
is good, bad, or indifferent for for man, beast, and various segments of
each is really irrelevant to what you _claimed_ is your goal in raising
this topic in the first place -- i.e., evaluation of your licence.  So,
please skip all the justifications for your licence and sundry
criticisms of software ecologies you don't like:  They're irrelevant to
the subject, and of minor interest at best.

-- 
Cheers,
Rick Moen                                          ROMANI, ITE DOMVM!
rick@linuxmafia.com
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3