Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Alex Bligh]

Russ,

>  > 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.

You didn't reply to my email which
a) listed the "non-functionality" changes made which could be backported
   to the OVPL, and showed that they were completely minimal.
b) queried why it should be the OVPL team's responsibility to get the
   CDDL folks to "fix" [1] their license, when they might be of the opinion
   that it isn't broken, or doesn't need fixing.
c) questioned why "fixing" [1] the CDDL should be a criteria for approval
   by the OSI, given the published criterion for approval with the OSI
   is that it meets the OSD, and the OSD currently has no provision that
   says "any license from which a new license is derived should also
   be fixed up". Sun were not asked to fix the MPL.

[1] quotes because I am not convinced that was is for us a necessary
improvement that makes it multijurisdictional necessarily means the CDDL,
which as far as I know has only been used for US origin code, is broken.

> 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.

I am taking it that you read the license before making that comment,
and looked at how you might renumber it.

The numbering HAS been preserved in its entirety, apart from the
section 1, and the addition of 3.3.

Section 1 has the majority of renumbering, and is the definitions section. As
you are probably aware, it is normal for definitions to be in alphabetical
order and consecutively numbered. Not doing so would make the OVPL much
harder to read. In any case, anyone reading either license references the
definitions by the defined term, and not by number. I hope you are not
seriously suggesting we change this.

Section 3.3 has been inserted where it is because it is directly related
to modifications (section 3.2). The consequent changes introduced are
the paragraph numbers after 3.3 which are not referenced anywhere, and
are hence minimal.

In any case, as above, there is no OSD requirement that the numbering
of one license should match the numbering of a predecessor, so no,
you are not on safe ground to insist on this particular change. The
criterion for approval is whether it meets the OSD.

The fact I've tracked 7 versions of the OVPL for changes, even with
Word's screwy numbering system, rather suggests this is not a practical
problem.

If, however, the OSI takes the somewhat perverse step of approving the OVPL
subject to the renumbering of clause 3.3 to be at the end of Clause 3, I will
renumber it. However, I am not withdrawing it from the approval process only
to submit a renumbered version which personally I think would be less
legible, given the reasons are pedantic at best and will cause delay.

>  > 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.

Could you point to the bit of the RPSL that allows this? (i.e. allowing the
ID to release software modified by others under other terms with those
modifications). I couldn't find it on a quick scan. Obviously the ID can
release software they have copyright in under any terms additional they want,
but that's true under any license.

Alex