OVPL vote results

[David Barrett]

Building on Ernest's point B:

Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> Would the Board be willing to either:
> 
> b) Explain what language the OVPL might adopt that would align with 
> the QPL's term's sufficiently to obtain OSI approval

In our lengthy discussions about the OVPL, many variations of the
license were discussed, including some that address the concern the
board is raising now.  I accept that the board has rejected the OVPL as
currently drafted.  But I'm eager for the next step of the stated
license approval process, which includes:

http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval
> 6. ... Similarly, if we see a problem, we will work with you to resolve
> any problems uncovered in public comment.

Given that there has been a problem uncovered in the public comment
(mandatory license back), and given that we (now) know you agree it's a
problem, can we now expect your assistance in resolving it?


I hope you can understand our surprise and frustration, as this
"problem" was known from the very start, and we've been literally
begging for the board's feedback since.  The only feedback I've seen
from the board was indirectly via Russell, and his only concern was with
whether the OVPL could be approved without an update to the CDDL.  For
example, exactly two months ago I wrote:

http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:10887:jicjdhdcnkmekmllfdld
> Subject: OVPL Next Steps
> From: David Barrett <dbarrett at quinthar.com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:39:52 -0700
> 
> Alex -
> 
> If the OVPL is approved verbatim as Russell recommends (assuming CDDL 
> remains unchanged), what else (if anything) remains to be done before 
> you label it 1.0 and ready for use?
> 
> (Granted, it can be used at any time, but I'm eager to get the final 
> thing.)
> 
> -david

So not only was there no indication the board saw trouble with the OVPL,
there was no attempt to engage the OVPL authors to address this point.
On top of this, the OVPL authors proactively sought to draw attention to
the possible problem of the grant-back, even going so far as to
recommend changes that might solve those concerns.

So again, I welcome the board's involvement at this point.  But I hope
that the involvement is not a one-time affair.  So far as I can tell, we
are finally *starting* the OSI approval process, and I'm eager to hear
the board's suggestions on how to make the OVPL approvable. 
Specifically, I'm eager to hear the board's opinion on the many 
variations to the OVPL proposed, both by its authors and others on the list.

-david