License Proliferation Dissatisfaction
cdibona at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 01:33:04 UTC 2007
I think you might be a little too sensitive. Ranking anything will
make proponents of those licenses ranked lower feel worse. Also,
redundancy and popularity are very different things. There are a lot
of redundant aspects in the licenses in the top tier.
On 4/22/07, David K. Gasaway <dave at gasaway.org> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2007 at 19:58, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > The board has approved the committee's report
> > (http://opensource.org/lpc) and endorses the categorization
> > (http://opensource.org/licenses/category).
> While I respect the committee's efforts and conclusions, please
> reconsider the word "redundant". It is poorly descriptive and even
> inflammatory. "Licenses with similar goals to more popular licenses"
> or even "Less popular licenses" would probably go over more smoothly.
> Surely the committee can find language that is appropriately dissuasive
> without being offensive.
> -:-:- David K. Gasaway
> -:-:- Email: dave at gasaway.org
> -:-:- Web : dave.gasaway.org
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
More information about the License-discuss