License Approval Process
Thunda at downunder.net.au
Mon Feb 14 02:55:04 UTC 2000
Hello again all;
J C Lawrence wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 18:40:26 -0500
> Rafi M Goldberg <rafimg at usa.net> wrote:
> > It is unfortunate that the powers that be @ opensource.org only
> > seem to be interested in gaining the support of large corporations
> > and those who decide to just use an existing license... I hope
> > that's not actually the case, but it doesn't look good.
ESR certainly receives considerable flammage
to this effect, I am sure. Hopefully he's
reading this and is prepared to defend himself.
Hello, Eric! *waves*
I'm not immune from my share of throwing stones
from glass houses myself, so I guess I'll take
the position as Devil's Advocate(1) on this one.
I'm not prepared to hand Eric the prize for
making the hacker community rise as fast and
as far as it has. I *will* say that his impact
in the process cannot be discounted. Whether
you agree with his message or not, I think
it's clear that the messenger certainly
brought some of the memes into the corporate
> I would suggest emailling the principles directly (ESR and Perens)
> in the case of slow response.
With the caveat that Perens isn't at the OSI
And, to give your license a baptism of fire,
you may prefer to email it to Richard Stallman
instead (rms at gnu.org). You will have few
email conversations quite as challenging, I
> J C Lawrence Home: claw at kanga.nu
(1) Just a note on where that term comes from.
The Catholic church, in deciding on whether to
make someone into a saint, appoints a "Devil's
Advocate", whose job it is to fight the
approval of that person to sainthood. Your pointless
trivia for the day.
More information about the License-discuss