Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Russell Nelson]

David Barrett writes:
 > A process question (to whoever is authorized to answer): has Russell 
 > been assigned to be the "case worker" for OVPL?  In other words, is 
 > Russell's approval any more influential than the other board's members, 
 > or is he just expressing his decision early?

I'm the chairman and sole official member of the license approval
committee.  When we formally established committees back in March, I
tried to adopt the license-approval list members as a formal committee
(you can see that email in the archives).  Unfortunately, California
law doesn't recognize an informal group as a formal group.  I suppose
that should have been obvious to me.  So, while I'm the only official
member of the committee, I recognize that EVERYONE's input here is
valuable.

 > Furthermore, am I correct in understanding there are three (or possibly 
 > four) actions required for Russell to recommend OVPL approval:

Well, no, I'm going to recommend whatever is the sense of this
committee.  If I'm wrong in thinking that people want changes to the
OVPL, well, then I'm wrong and I'll tell that to the board.  When I
submit my report to the board, I'll send it here also and give people
a chance to it a hearty Bronx cheer or "Well done!" as appropriate and
needed.  If I need to revise the report because of too many Bronx
cheers, I'll do so, and apologize for my mistake.  That should never
happen though.

 > preserve maximum similarity with the CDDL, with the intent to
 > maximize understandability.

Yes.  From Alex's perspective, he wants the best possible license
without reference to any other licenses.  From my perspective (and I
hope people agree with me), if his software is successful, it will NOT
be read by itself.  It will be read in the context of many other
licenses.

 > 4) Though not stated, does Russell require that if the CDDL owner 
 > decides to back-port some subset of OVPL changes, the OVPL's approval 
 > will be delayed until the CDDL is updated and re-approved as well?

I didn't recommend that to Alex.  I suggested that he submit the OVPL
without the CDDL improvements, and re-submit for later approval of a
1.1 version of the license.  Everyone who uses the 1.0 version will be
able to unilaterally switch to the 1.1 version.

 > If so, I'm estatic because it means that Russell accepts and endorses 
 > the core value of the OVPL and merely has logistical concerns.

Yes and no.  The license is approvable.  I don't think it will be a
widely used license, and I don't believe that software licensed under
it will be widely contributed-to.  I recommend that the OVPL not be
used, simply because I believe that the open source effect requires
more than mere compliance with the OSD.  It's OSI's job to tell people
when, in our experience, a license will not achieve their goals, and
we have never shrunk from that task.

I must note that this is only slightly related to my own opinions, and
that for OSI to speak on the quality of a license requires a board
vote.

 > But on the other hand I'm a bit saddened because, personally, I believe 
 > the first two requests are counterproductive (reduce 
 > understandability).  The third and fourth I can somewhat understand, but 
 > they seem to set a stiff new precedent that at the very least should be 
 > stated in the approval process.

Nope.  We've always felt free to return a license to the author if we
think it can be improved.  We've explicitly said to people "You can
improve your license by making these changes: X, Y, and Z.  We accept
that the license is approvable as-is, and if you re-submit as-is we'll
approve it, but we feel that it would be better if it were different."

-- 
--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.