Discuss: Request for OSI approval
cknight at ghostwheel.com
Fri Apr 26 14:28:26 UTC 2002
At 12:43 AM 4/26/2002 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>on Fri, Apr 26, 2002, Chris Knight (cknight at ghostwheel.com) wrote:
> > At 09:36 PM 4/25/2002 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > >Quoting Russell Nelson (nelson at crynwr.com):
> > >Personal opinion, but very widely held: HTML in e-mail is obnoxious.
> > >It should be confined to the Web.
> > It was an attachment, not the body of the email. Even a purist can't
> > complain about that, unless they have a poorly configured mail client
> > that in-lined an attachment.
>To the contrary. Discussing licenses often means focusing tightly on
>specific clauses. The ability to do this in manner that presents the
>content uniformly to all recipients of a list, supports "reply below
>quoted" responses, and doesn't leave the reader subject to vagueries of
>interpretation of nonstandard charactersets, is a boon to the license
>submitter. This is my own strongly held and frequently expressed
>opinion. It's not part of the OSI guidelines (last I checked), but
>IMVAO ought to be.
Thank you. This is a rational and understandable reason for posting a
text-only version to the list. It certainly makes more sense than "HTML
belongs on the Web", which doesn't take into account that hypertext existed
as a document format long before 'the web'.
>You've now engaged yourself in a fight with the group whose assistance
>you're seeking in having your license reviewed. Bad form.
I found the first reply to my OSI approval request to be insulting. I felt
that was bad form, and did not speak well for the discussion process as a
whole. I have also received private support for my comments, so I do not
believe I have engaged myself in a fight with 'the group'.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss