I don't mean to whine, but

[David Johnson]

On Tuesday 26 February 2002 03:31 pm, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I don't mean to whine, but nobody has said a word about these
> licenses:

Okay, quick examination:

> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4875:200202:kdeehglcnnehcgmipifk

I see no need to excercise my power of "veto" over this license. It clearly 
passes the OSD. But, and this is a big but, why does every trivial variant of 
an existing license need discussion? A far better approach is to 
institutionalize license templates. Make every approved license be in 
template form, so that companies like OpenE don't need to submit trivialities 
like this.

> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4881:200202:keniicngdgcgjmjgdnoi

Mainly a ditto of the above. It's more than just a trivial change to an 
existing license, but still quite simple. And I do seem to recall a brief 
discussion on this. Not willing to check the archives, I must assume my 
memory is in error.

> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:4860:200202:pdjhhikmglggeanafjcc

I definitely recall a discussion on this one. Am I mistaken?

> This list was set up so that "outsiders" could have veto power over
> licenses. 

Veto power? You're kidding, aren't you? Where was this veto power when the 
APSL was being discussed?

I've always that that this list was to discuss licenses informally, not to be 
the main clearinghouse for license approval. 

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
pgp public key on website
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3