idle-priority: OWL R1

Karsten M. Self kmself at
Sat May 5 20:42:24 UTC 2001

on Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:11:10PM -0000, mirabilos (eccesys at wrote:
> As the feedback received on this list has not been quite
> helpful I decided to rewrite it, with keeping the sense.
> I mainly removed the semicolones and the lazyness clause.
> I now decide to put my code finally under this released
> version and just ask you to approve it when you have a
> bit of time. In my eyes it meets the OSD as it is today.
> It is not urgent any longer, and sourceforge will have
> to wait.
> Thanks to the answers I got, although they didn't help much,
> and thanks to you for putting your time onto reading this.
> For the interested: I upload the OWL_R1 verbatim bytestream to:
> (I'd download as application/octet-stream, although the file
>  itself is text/plain; charset=ISO_646.irv:1991)

Note that the responses you receive from this list, while not
necessarily those of the OSI board itself, are likely to be fairly
strongly consistent with the board's own decision and/or actions.  I
haven't seen any on-list challenges to any of the objections or
criticisms I'd made previously.  This is a group that tends to discuss
disagreements freely, I'd tend to assume a general state of agreement
with my views (and invite comments from anyone differing with this

You appear to be looking for a content (text or other non-software
works) license.  Several are published, including those of the Free
Software Foundation and the Open Publication License.

I'm not as familiar with this area of licensing as I am with software,
but my recommendations are the same:

  - Look at the existing license space.

  - Identify how existing licenses do or don't meet your needs.

  - If you must write your own license, take the task seriously.  At the
    least, get professional legal input appropriate for your
    jurisdictions, and take translation to other languages seriously.

  - Present your case clearly, concisely, and logically to the
    license-discuss list using the guidelines I'd provided previously in
    list mail on this topic.

Again:  this is a volunteer organization.  It moves slowly.  Many
members believe that license proliferation is a bad thing.  You're
asking a favor of the readership, not the other way around.

Incidentally, the formatting of the document at the link listed above
still leaves much to be desired.


Karsten M. Self <kmself at>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list