Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise))

[Robert Samuel White]

Thank you, Bruce.  I too think my license is better for having gone
through this process, and I am very grateful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Dodson [mailto:bruce_dodson at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 1:57 PM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; 'Robert Samuel White'; 'Russell Nelson'
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Moral Rights (was Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed
Compromise))

I don't know if this is quite what Larry was saying, but I for one
consider
it an unfair tactic to try to discourage RSW from seeking approval.
Russ
and other board members may think he is misguided in believing that
others
will want to use his license, and might even be right, but that does not
change your obligation to approve his license if it is OSD compliant.

RSW he has shown a lot of patience, and has been flexible in
incorporating
requested changes (even those that have nothing to do with OSD).
Nevertheless his mounting frustration has also shown through at times,
and I
empathize.  For what it's worth, I think his license is better for
having
gone through this process.  Once any remaining "significant" issues are
worked out you should approve his license.

That said, I think RSW might benefit from seeking some professional
legal
advice before requesting final approval, just to make sure that the
license
that gets approved is one that truly meets his needs.



Question: can the OSI's approval process be changed so that
OSD-compliant
licenses are approved, but not automatically published on the website?
i.e.
"8. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source
Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by
other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge
significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved.  At
our
discretion, we may also publish a copy of the license on our website."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> I am unhappy with the current status of this request.  Robert Samuel
> White (RSW) is absolutely within his rights to obtain approval for his
> license if it satisfies the published criteria on OSI's website.  Russ
> Nelson is also absolutely correct in worrying, as do all members of
the
> board of directors of OSI, about the proliferation of licenses that
only
> serve to confuse and confound the community.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Samuel White [mailto:webmaster at enetwizard.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:18 PM
> > To: 'Russell Nelson'
> > Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: RE: Simplified Artistic License (A Proposed Compromise)
> >
> > I've decided to just forget it.  I'm going to use my license
> > and forget about OSI approving it.  I didn't want this much
> > controversy.  I was very patient and listened to every one's
> > comments on the list, and I adjusted my license as
> > recommended, all with the misguided belief that my license
> > would be approved as long as it met the conditions of the
> > OSD.  I support OSI, the OSD, and the open source community.
> > So I guess this is the end.  Have a wonderful life and keep
> > up the good work.


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