For Approfal: OSL 3.0 and AFL 3.0

Chuck Swiger chuck at
Wed Sep 14 04:03:05 UTC 2005

Russell Nelson wrote:
> Lawrence Rosen writes:
>> This is yet another example of OSI spending more effort on form
>> rather than function
> Nope.  It's functional.  Back before it was a requirement, people
> would submit licenses and the ONLY WAY to tell that the email was a
> license approval request was to read through each and every email in
> detail to see if this subject or that subject or this thread or that
> thread contained an approval request.

Mandating a clear, standard Subject line when people submit a license for 
consideration is quite reasonable.  Deciding that the Subject header of 
"Submitted for Approval: " is too different from "For Approval: " for the 
license proposal to receive consideration without being reposted is taking the 
bureaucratic mindset past the bounds of common sense.

Regardless, we had already discussed these changes to the OSL and AFL, and I 
believe the licenses should be approved.

[ ... ]
> And because you've been a nice and helpful person in the past, I'll
> ignore your petty use of 'f' instead of 'v' in the subject.

Ouch!  My first thought was that Larry made a simple typo.

My second thought is that by making a point out of such a trivial matter by 
concluding that Larry Rosen was being "petty" deliberately, you are doing 
precisely the opposite of "ignoring" the issue.

It's counterproductive.  Lets move on, please...


More information about the License-discuss mailing list