what *is* the approval process?

Dag-Erling Smørgrav des at linpro.no
Wed Aug 1 05:39:20 UTC 2007

Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> writes:
> Hrm.  That's got to be my fault, since it was my action item to
> "Preserve existing URLs".  The real "old website" approval process is
> in certification_mark.php, which is no longer accessible and even if
> it was, uses old PHP code.  I've looked, and it has the same content
> as .../approval.  Thus I feel safe in saying that
> http://opensource.org/approval has been the proper procedure to
> follow, before and after the website upgrade.
> My apologies for the confusion.  That page has been changed to point
> to .../approval.

OK, Russ, now I'm getting angry.

Firstly, in <87r6ov93cp.fsf at des.linpro.no> on June 1st, I wrote the
following to you and the board:

> OK, first, allow me to point out that you have two different pages (the
> other is <URL:http://opensource.org/approval>) listing two slightly
> different procedures for license approval and two different email
> addresses.

You answered in <18016.24333.862925.706713 at desk.crynwr.com> later the
same day:

> Hrm!  This is very not good.  I've been pointing people to
> certification_mark.html for years now, and yet it appears as if
> certification_mark.php is newer ... and that's what's on the new
> website.  But that's our proble, not yours.

So please don't pretend you weren't aware of this.

Secondly, I specifically asked you what was missing from my application
other than that I had sent it to the wrong address.  Your answer was:

> Yes, you should have sent it to license-discuss instead of us.  The
> procedure tells you to get an analysis from a licensed practitioner of
> the law, and yet .... we haven't held everybody to that standard.

I interpreted this, and the result of the (very brief) discussion on
license-discuss, to mean that a legal analysis was not required in this

Thridly, I posted the Simplified BSD License to license-discuss on June
4th.  The board was already aware of it since I had mistakenly sent it
to them first.  *You* were already aware of it, having discussed the
application with me.  At no point after I posted it to license-discuss
did you or anyone else mention anything about it not being submitted
properly, until now - and you *still* won't tell me what's missing.

Fourthly, license-approval bounces, so there is nowhere else to submit
licenses to than license-discuss.

What am I to conclude?  That your little club is invitation-only, and I
wasn't invited?

Dag-Erling Smørgrav
Senior Software Developer
Linpro AS - www.linpro.no

More information about the License-discuss mailing list