Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Russell Nelson]

Chris F Clark writes:
 > So, can we return to the discussion of the OVPL and what it would
 > take to make it acceptable as an OSI-approved license? It has
 > relevance, especially to the charter of this list....

I want to see the CDDL improvements currently in the OVPL (and I think
they are genuine improvements) taken out and applied to the CDDL where
they belong.  It may be that the CDDL folks don't think they're
improvements, but the OVPL folks should make the effort and report
back on their success or failure.

I also want to see the numbering of the CDDL preserved.  This makes
for fewer changebars and easier study and analysis.  I think I'm on
pretty safe ground to insist upon this particular change.

 > Note, I am specificly interested in the asymetric properties of the
 > OVPL, the properties which allow the software to be re-released by the
 > "initial developer" under other license terms, but do not extend that
 > right to other developers.

How many people have reused the RPSL?  It also has that property.  I
suspect that that property discourages developers from contributing to
the project.  This question has nothing to do with the approvability
of the license; instead the attractiveness of it.

-- 
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |                       |     you know what not to do.