License Proliferation Dissatisfaction
cdibona at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 15:35:25 UTC 2007
I agree that cddl shouldn't have made the cut. But I wasn't part of
the committee. We made similar but not exact decisions when we created
the project hosting service here (yay #2!) And the only license we
actually have people clamor for is the epl. But even that is too
unpopular to warrant inclusion.
On 4/23/07, Forrest J. Cavalier III <mibsoft at mibsoftware.com> wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Lawrence Rosen writes:
> > > I'm not trying to disparage CDDL or CPL here. I'm just punching holes
> > > Russ' nonsense.
> > I hear you saying that you're unhappy. I understand that you're
> > unhappy. I'm sorry that you're unhappy. But your unhappiness isn't
> > going to change the outcome. Your choice at this point is whether you
> > choose to be happy or unhappy. May I recommend the choice to be happy?
> What Russ apparently did not hear was Larry asking the committee to reveal
> what concrete method was used to determine popularity.
> In this reply I hear "La, La, La, I'm not listening."
> What concrete method was used by the committee to determine popularity?
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