Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Russell Nelson]

Alex Bligh writes:
 > I await their confirmatory emails. As I said, we are always ready
 > to listen to feedback. However, my priority is to make the license easy
 > to read (which includes comparability with the CDDL), not merely to make
 > it easily comparable with the CDDL.

I understand that that is *your* priority.  It is reasonable for you
to what what is best for you.  As an industry standards group, OSI
needs to worry more about what is best for the whole industry than for
any one party.  I don't want to make this into any kind of personal
issue (not that you are).  We're both acting properly within our roles.

 > * Revision of limitation of liability clause
 > * Revision of warranty disclaimer clause
 > 
 > The latter two ARE made from a legal perspective and we have
 > already supplied the reasons for them to this list

Nobody suggests anything different.  They're changes to the CDDL,
however, and are not unique requirements to the OVPL.  You could leave
them off and still gain the benefits of the OVPL-specific terms.

 > I therefore think we have satisfied what you have requested.

I've asked you to contact the CDDL folks to see if they're willing to
take these changes.  You haven't done that.  I've done it for you.
We'll give them a bit of time to respond, and if there is no response
I'll assume that they don't want the changes to go into the CDDL, and
they can go into the OVPL.

 > > No, we've always felt free to reject licenses which are not in the
 > > best interest of the open source community.
 > 
 > Against what criteria to you judge that?

If a license is substantially similar to an existing license we have
asked the submittor to use the existing one.  If the license is hard
to read, we've asked for clarifications.  If the license contains
terms that other parties in the open source community would object to,
we'll tell the submittor.  If the license is not reusable we have
asked that it be template'd.  If we have asked for reasonable changes,
and the submittor refuses to make them, we have rejected the license.

We haven't always done that.  We've had to learn as we go.  That is
MUCH preferable to continued ignorance, I feel.

Over time the process has become more and more transparent,
regularized, and open to community input.  I expect these changes to
continue.

-- 
--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.