Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?)

[Mike Milinkovich]

> It seems to me that both of the licenses we're being asked to discuss
> lack compelling original features. I've not heard a detailed
> explanation yet of why they therefore are not duplicative and deserve
> approval. The only argument I have heard - that Microsoft are
> "playing by the rules and deserve to be rewarded" - smacks of special
> treatment.

Well, the obvious counterpoint to that is that the FSF is not playing by the
rules (in the sense that they haven't even asked for OSI approval), but I
expect (L)GPLv3 will be approved.

And I do not think that I or anyone else have said that "... Microsoft are
"playing by the rules and deserve to be rewarded"...". What I am saying is
that Microsoft are playing by the rules and should expect to be treated like
any other organization playing by the rules. How you can portray that as
special treatment is beyond me.