newsforge story

[Joseph Reagle]

On Wednesday 05 September 2001 15:03, M. Drew Streib wrote:
> For those that haven't seen, NewsForge is carrying a none-to-flattering
> story of the discussion on this list these past couple of weeks:
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251

Yes, it's weird when people do reporting by quoting folks in an email 
thread: some things are a little off. 

Three issues:

A. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251
> Joseph Reagle of W3C resubmitted the license on August 31.

I did ping many times before. I only resubmitted when I was informally told 
to do so. By informally I mean there was no email to me but to this list, 
and there was no indication on any of the web pages this was the proper 
approach.  (I don't think that's a good process regardless, just increases 
the size and confuses the state of the back log, but I'm happy to comply if 
that's what people want.)

B. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251
>"I submitted three licenses on 8/31 for review to the license-discuss 
>mailing list. Has anybody reviewed them?"

I can not find these posts in the archive for the day of 2001/08/31 [1]. 
Perhaps this the problem?! Given I've contributed to the hassle of this 
thread, I'd be happy to have a look.

C. http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/04/1615251
> Another post in support of certification of the W3C license 
> asked the board why it had not been listed. "Actions the W3C 
> would apparently like to take -- including hosting Amaya 
> on sourceforge.net -- depend upon this approval, which has 
> been pending for over a year.

This is an uncited (by Newsforge) excerpt from Matthew Weigel [0]. To be 
clear, I only spoke of HTML Tidy (I'm unaware of the state of any plans for 
Amaya). It's also subsequently been stated that while SourceForge relies 
upon the OSI list as a white list, they're willing to accept other projects 
at their discretion; they've kindly accomodated HTML Tidy under the W3C 
software license.

[0] http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg03627.html
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/maillist.html

RE: documentation 
From: SamBC <09/01/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Lawrence E. Rosen <08/31/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrelevant 
From: Daniel MD <08/31/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrelevant 
From: Daniel MD <08/31/2001>

License for approval 
From: Andrew Josey <08/31/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Matthew C. Weigel <08/31/2001>

Request for approval - MOSL 
From: Leon Gommans <08/31/2001>

Re: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Michael Tiemann <08/31/2001>

Re: W3C license 
From: Steve Mallett <08/31/2001>

Re: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Russell Nelson <08/31/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Matthew C. Weigel <08/31/2001>

Re: Submission of W3C Software License for Review 
From: David Johnson <08/31/2001>

Re: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: David Johnson <08/31/2001>

RE: License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: nights <08/31/2001>

Submission of W3C Software License for Review 
From: Joseph Reagle <08/31/2001>

Re: W3C license 
From: Joseph Reagle <08/31/2001>

License backlog - OSI is making itself irrellevant 
From: Roger Browne <08/31/2001>

Re: W3C license 
From: Joseph Reagle <08/31/2001>

Re: W3C license 
From: Rodent of Unusual Size <08/31/2001>

Re: W3C license 
From: Matthew C. Weigel <08/30/2001>

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