request for approval of APOSSL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
> 
> * the name of the software should not include pronoic.org or Pronoic Ltd.

That makes it like the Apache license, I think.

> 
> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask 
> for permission to use the term pronoic. 

Yes. I see that clause 4 says that.

>                                           in that case your request 
> will be denied.

Clause 4 doesn't say that.  It says that you can get written
permission by contacting contact at pronoic.org.  "Before
obtaining written permission" also indicates that written
permission is available.  Read it:

  * 4. The term pronoic should be used to endorse and promote products derived
  *    from this software before obtaining written permission. For written
  *    permission, you must contact contact at pronoic.org.

But since you have just written you will never give permission, the license
clause 4 is nonsense and is an offer in bad faith.

> As far as I am aware, having slightly off-beat goals is not a reason 
> to deny an OSSL such accreditation.  

It is well recognized that the OSD is incomplete.  I think it is
proper that the OSI board rejects licenses with nonsense clauses
or that are internally contradicting, even if they do not have
an OSD conflict.  I think it is proper that they pay no attention
to licenses when the author says up front that he puts it forth
in bad faith.

Whine all you want about how it isn't fair that you have a
quine'd license which is OSD comptible.  I still recommend it
is soundly rejected as a "this statement is false" license.

Use the Apache license.

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