OVPL summary (was: board action on License Committee Report for September 2005)
dbarrett at quinthar.com
Tue Sep 13 22:32:11 UTC 2005
Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:33:40PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
>>Aside from Andy's concern listed below, everybody thinks the license
>>complies with the OSD.
> That's not at all true. There were multiple folks, including myself,
> who don't think the OVPL complies with the OSD. We had extensive
> discussion on the list on it.
Yes, I initially assumed this enormous oversight in Russell's summary
indicated that the OSI board had already silently discussed and
disregarded those objections in some back room meeting. But if the OSI
board hasn't even heard the objections, then I agree the summary they've
been presented is *extremely* misleading.
It seems to me that -- as Mark states above -- there are substantial
questions that remain undecided as to whether the OVPL's infamous
"section 3.3" fits within the OSD. It seems the range of options
includes (at least):
1) It does fit the OSD, and it should be approved verbatim.
2) It can be made to fit the OSD with certain changes.
3) It doesn't fit the OSD and is fundamentally unacceptable.
Personally, I fall between 1-2. I think it's fine as stated, and might
recommend a couple tweaks to make it fit the letter and spirit of the
OSD even further.
However, I know there are others who are pure #2 in the audience, as
well as some who are pure #3.
> In any event, the only reason conversation died down, at least the only
> reason I stopped participating, was that it was rather pointless to
> continually bring up different reasons why the license-back agreement
> would be incompatible with the OSD, when we were still waiting for board
> members to join the conversation so we wouldn't be discussing things in
> such a vaccuum.
> So while the discussions on OVPL-OSD compatibility were basically on
> hold while we all waited for board members to join in on the discussion
> as was repeatedly requested, what seems to have happened instead of
> actual board involvement was a board vote that didn't actually directly
> address any of the concerns folks had.
I agree 100%. If the board truly hasn't been following the issue and
hasn't made any decisions, then they deserve an accurate summary of the
More information about the License-discuss