YAPL is bad (was: Re: Backlog assistance?)

[Steve Lhomme]

En réponse à Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>:

> begin Steve Lhomme quotation:
> 
> > Once again, as I wrote :
> > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ?
> 
> Ah, I love polemical rhetorical questions!  Thanks for the
> contribution
> to my collection.
> 
> In the meantime, since you say your concerns are entirely theoretical,
> and that you lack time to research specifics, we seem to have from you
> no further substantive matters for discussion.

En réponse à "Karsten M. Self" <kmself at ix.netcom.com>:

> > "Is the OSI there to judge what a license is worth ? If so they
> should
> > divide the OSI in 2 parts : the neutral/approval part, and the
> > political/judging part... I think most people need the 1st part to
> > work or use."
> 
> The OSI should allocate its resources wisely.  As such, it should
> ensure
> that:
> 
>   - Newly proposed licenses aren't proposed lightly.
>   - Newly proposed licenses don't overly duplicate existing licenses.
>   - Newly proposed licenses topcally meet the OSD requirements for
>     deeper consideration.
> 
> This does call for a acertain discriminating role in judging
> applications.
> 
> I believe Rick has stated the situation clearly:  you have not
> demonstrated your case, and appear to have no practical concerns.  I'd
> suggest you mediate silently until the situation has changed.
> 
> Peace.

OK, since you consider the theoretical aspect of the discussing 
pointless/useless/whatever. Here is my practical case for your pragmatic minds :
I'm working (not alone) on a derivation of the QPL license in order to make it 
GPL compatible (and also a few minor changes). Maybe for you it's not a big 
change, but for me it IS. As it's "overly duplicate existing licenses" it would 
probably not qualify for the OSD to check it... But is the OSD here to decide 
for the developpers what are the license that "deserve" to be compliant ? If 
after 6 months of being published a license doesn't appear in the list, people 
will consider that it's not compliant and will be reluctant to work on 
something that might not be "open-source enough". Do you think that's fair to 
newcomers ? Do you think that encourage the growth of the Open-Source 
community ? Do you think it makes evolution possible (AFAIK evolution is 
different from revolution because it's made of small changes here and there) ?

BTW Rick, was that an invitation to leave this list (my english is average) ? 
Why didn't you answer my concern (which IMHO makes sense) instead ?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3