documentation

[sambc at nights.force9.co.uk]

>Where have I demanded it?  I've said "it's not appropriate according to
>the stated goals of the OSI" - anyone can read the main web page and
>see it's so.

I have to see that it's a matter of opinion. OSI Certification Mark applies only to software packages. Doesn't say anything that OSI only cares about software full stop.

>Go back through the archives.  See where Greg Lodon gets his panties in
>a knot, bitching about us open source hypcrites with our GPL?  Now see
>where I start getting unpolite?

I have to say he seems to have misconceptions about simple copyright statements and more complex licenses (IANAL) - however, you reacted in entirely the wrong way, repeating yourself rather than refuting his new points correctly.

>Tell ya what: try offering someone advice - and then have them call you
>a hypocrite for not saying what they want you to say.  And then see how
>polite you are.

I think you took things too personally. You should've looked at his reasoning, seen it was wrong, and corrected it.

>What other points are there?  The OSI doesn't pretend to cover
>documentation licenses.  That said, what he's looking for - patches -
>is not, IMO, appropriate for open documentation.

Firstly, yes, as you seem to've recognised, that's your opinion that patches are inappropriate. I actually agree, although there are other solutions to what Greg wanted.

Secondly, the OSI does not specify that only software *licenses* are covered, merely that they only certify software products. You are reading into that in a possibly incorrect way.


Sam Barnett-Cormack

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3