We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
chris.travers at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 23:57:46 UTC 2007
On 8/23/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
> > I thought this was a list for discussing licenses in general.
> It's not, officially. It's a list for discussing whether licenses meet
> the Open Source Definition and whether they should be approved. Now,
> we're all guilty of being off-topic at times, but we try to keep it to a
> minimum. Alex seems to be here specifically to criticize the FSF.
All I am asking is that this should be stated on the list of mailing lists
or at least put in a FAQ about the mailing list. Right now if you request
one you get a reply that says basically "None available."
My issue is that there seems to be one-sided enforcement of rules against
certain points of view. THis is facilitated by a lack of an obvious frame
of reference that we all can use. We *really* should have one. Otherwise
this becomes selectively enforced BS.
Why is Larry Rosen's discussion with Rick about compilation copyright
definition on-topic but Alex's discussion of the boundaries of the GPL v2
and derivative works not?
> The subject has been changed to reflect the changed topic, so what
> exactly is your
> > problem?
> Alex's topic is not MS-PL/GPL compatibility. Alex's topic is how he
> thinks the FSF's interpretation of what derivative works are likely to
> be is wrong.
Either way, this is coming across as a few people who are unwilling to
discuss facts using list rules when it suits them only to keep the rest
under submission. I want to say specifically that I do not consider you,
Matt, to be one of them because you *have* addressed my points and been
willing to try to *prove me wrong.* (Furthermore, you have succeeded wrt the
GPL v3 requiring the ability to relicense under exactly that license.)
I list rules document is needed because we need some fair and evenhanded
application of rules to all on the list, without regard to opinion,
viewpoint, who they like or don't, etc.
Heck, this whole discussion started over questions of why we should approve
a license from Microsoft when some people consider them as the most viscious
competitor. Everything else on the thread has been an attempt to discuss
either that point or supporting arguments (recursively). Unfortunately that
doesn't seem likely here :-(
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss