Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Alex Bligh]

David,

--On 30 August 2005 13:47 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett at quinthar.com> wrote:

> Alex -- Can you summarize, in light of all this latest discussion, what
> further changes to the OVPL (if any) you intend to do before you'd like
> it submitted by Russell to the board for approval?

As far as I understand the process, the OVPL has already been submitted by
me in current form (v0.07) to the OSI board for approval. It has proven
difficult to obtain confirmation of this fact. I don't believe Russ needs
to submit it on my behalf, though the rules appear not to be clear.

I have made clear we will make various changes should the OSI board require
them as a condition of approval, including any numbering changes.

I have also asked for comments on the following potential change:
+ "Otherwise Make Available" shall, with reference to software, mean the
+ use of that software in such a manner that it may be used by one or more
+ parties other than You, or (in the course of their employment) Your
+ employees, or (in the exclusive course of their duties to You) Your
+ contractors, whether such use is achieved by means of making that
+ software available to those parties over a computer network, or otherwise.

I think it's fair to characterize the response to this as negative, though
arguably the same considerations apply to the OSL.

I'm happy either way.

>  Also, could you
> summarize what changes have been recommended to you, and why you are not
> adopting them?

I don't believe we have had in recent times (past 2 months) any specific
changes suggested that we have rejected (this is from memory), other than
ones which change the nature of the license itself (e.g. remove 3.3).

> Russell -- Am I correct in understanding that you will present it to the
> board in any form Alex requests (including its current form)?  Granted,
> you might recommend against its approval (which is you responsibility and
> perogative, based on your own personal judgment), but you'll submit it
> nonetheless, correct?

Well I'll leave that for Russ to answer but I didn't believe licenses
submitted to the board for approval needed to be submitted by Russ but we
live & learn...

Alex