OVPL and the OSI Board on Thursday

[Pablo Barrera Franco]

Hi, from Buenos Aires:


>
> So there's a need for an additional license ANYWAY. Nothing does what the
> OVPL does (like it or loathe it) in terms of the ID license-back, apart
> from the QPL (which is deprecated and clearly unsuitable for a number of
> reasons). So (assuming the OVPL meets the OSD as I think it does) it
> fulfils a unique need and thus is not duplicative.

However, if this doesn't happen, I don't see it's a reason not to approve

> the OVPL (for reasons of preventing license proliferation).

Because even if all the "drafting" changes were incorporated into the 
CDDL, there would

> STILL need to be two licenses.
>
If CDDL make the changes you expect, was the CDDL fullfiling your needs 
developed  in OVPL?.
I think that a Second version of CDDL wouldnt generate a License 
Proliferation.

> Moreover, if they are reasonably happy with the CDDL, I would entirely
> sympathize with them not wanting to have a CDDL 1.0 and a CDDL 1.1
> hanging around which are in essence different only to the degree of
> drafting changes. If anything, *that's* unnecessary proliferation.

But an improvement in CDDL wouldnt be better than a new license?

Best Regards.

-- 


Pablo Barrera Franco 
Open Source + Biz
www.barrerafranco.com.ar 
--
Founder of OSILA | Iniciativa Open Source LA (Nodo Argentina)