Change ot topic, back to OVPL
nelson at crynwr.com
Fri Sep 2 03:00:38 UTC 2005
Ben Tilly writes:
> On 8/31/05, Brian Behlendorf <brian at collab.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > I can't imagine any unproven new license entering on any tier other
> > > than "not recommended". Not much of a stick to pound people with if
> > > they know they're going to get hit no matter what.
> > Wow. Is this the consensus view of the board? That the existing set of
> > licenses most likely can not be improved?
> I don't think that that was the message.
It wasn't. It's just that, well, I agree with Mitchell when she says
that the MPL may have warts and rough edges, but it has been tested by
time. If we're going to dress up and hire a band for a license, it's
not going to be for some johnny-come-lately license.
But note that that's just one L-P committee member talking. I haven't
heard anybody else suggest into what tier a newly approved license
should be placed. Not word one. Unsolved problem. Suggestions
should go to license-proliferation-discuss since they're dealing with
--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.
More information about the License-discuss