request for approval of APOSSL

Matthew C. Weigel weigel at
Wed Mar 6 17:59:12 UTC 2002

On Wednesday, March 6, 2002, at 07:23 a, dave sag wrote:

> the basic ideas are as follows:
> APOSSL is a BSD style licence save for the following special points.
> * the name of the software should not include or 
> Pronoic Ltd.

This is not a difference.  "Neither the name of <Organization> nor
the names of contributors may be used to endorse or promote..."

> * the software should be described as being pronoic unless you ask 
> for permission to use the term pronoic.  in that case your request 
> will be denied.

*sigh* every time I read descriptions or pseudocode or the legal text,
the results are different.

> while it is a non-traditional notion, it is not against the spirit 
> of an OSSL and in fact is helpful in that it further legitimises 
> notions of pronoia and pronoic thinking.  It is thus distinct from 
> other OSSLs as none of them, to my knowledge, have this as one of 
> their goals.

The license without that clause is functionally the same.  I say,
approve the license that is intended, which is to say the BSD license,
and ignore nonsense that is of dubious and uncertain legal affect.

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

Having a license that is functionally equivalent to the BSD is.

>   In an offlist email I have been accused of simply trying to 
> litter the OSSL domain space.  I refute this.

You have been so accused because you ignore my requests to, as the
approval procedure requests, explain *why* the existing license does
not meet your needs.

If you say it doesn't, but can't explain why, and then produce a license
that is functionally identical, it is hard to say that you are not

>   I am trying to seek approval for a new licence that addresses 
> points that are not addressed by any other licence.

You have neither clearly demonstrated that it is a new license, nor
have you ennumerated or described these points you say it addresses.

>   Whether or not I am the only person to ever deploy software 
> under such a licence is irrelevant.  A licence is not a popularity 
> contest.

You keep on repeating this, but no one disagrees with you.  Perhaps you
are not clear on what is being said if you think this is contrary to
what other people are saying.

weigel at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list