Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Russell Nelson wrote:
> I see the principle you're trying to work with here: if it complies
> with the OSD, it *is* open source.

Yes.  And failure to certify it based on OSD conformance will mean that 
you'll have a bunch of people running around saying "this license really 
is Open Source - it conforms to the OSD - but OSI failed to certify it 
because <insert conspiracy theory here>".  Approve it and put it directly, 
immediately on your "not recommended" list if OSI wants to pass judgement 
on its quality.

> > All this effort being poured into denying the OVPL
> > certification would be better invested elsewhere, such as in license
> > comparison documents, or the license selection wizards people have
> > proposed or prototyped, or in culling dead licenses.  IMHO.
>
> You're asking the right hand to ignore what the left hand is doing;
> worse than that, you're asking the right hand to build what the left
> hand is tearing down.

Not at all.  Assuming that the OVPL guys follow your requirements you'll 
be adding it to the list of licenses anyways, perhaps then later putting 
it on "not recommended".  The "stick" to use to limit the number of new 
licenses should not be certification - it should be getting placed on "not 
recommended".

 	Brian