URL for archive of license-proliferation list

[Mark Shewmaker]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:51:26PM -0700, Laura Majerus wrote:
> 
> Only LP committee members can post

Can you create a -discuss list that will finally allow for open
discussion (and input into the eventual decision-making by the OSI
board) on the issue?

Discusion on the issue was fairly limited here on license-discuss when
the issue came up publicly, ("limited" given the magnitude of possible
changes to address a conjectured problem.)

I've assummed that most other participants felt something like I did,
namely that discussion about license proliferation was at best off-topic
on license-discuss, so that it would be impolite to participate in the
horribly confused, off-topic discussions that did go on here.

Soon afterwards, that notion was re-affirmed, because there was soon to
be some other group or area set aside specifically for this discussion.

Then you posted some ground rules which, while I personally strongly
disagreed with them and could only assume others did too, I figured
would naturally be on the table once this other forum or whatnot
appeared.  (Since a forum discussing whether a problem really exists,
what it might be, and what solutions might be appropriate is pretty
pointless if acceptable solutions are pre-determined or constrained from
the get-go.)

So I personally took those ground rules as your initial conjectures and
ideas, and nothing more--as I assummed everyone else did.  Either way,
it's impossible to discuss them in this new forum until this new forum
comes into being.

So now we have an actual committee with committee membership having been
secretly decided upon by an unknown group.  But that's also no big deal,
because this committe itself doesn't have any different sort of sway on
OSI board decisions than does a random poster to license-discuss.

But the fundamental problem still remains:  There's still no place for
open discussions of the conjectured license proliferation problem,
discussion of possible solutions if it's determined to be a problem,
voting for folks to handle any particular types of issues if necessary,
etc.

That's what I've been expecting all along, as it's a necessary
pre-condition to even beginning to address potential large changes (if
such are necessary.)

It's rather strange that decisions are being made before any open
on-topic discussions and debate about the problem and possible and
appropriate solutions.

-- 
Mark Shewmaker
mark at primefactor.com