We need list rules, was MS-PL/GPL compatibility, was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
btilly at gmail.com
Fri Aug 24 02:22:55 UTC 2007
On 8/23/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Chris Travers (chris.travers at gmail.com):
> Disagree if you will, but every community I have ever been involved in has
> benefitted *immensely* from list rules.
Given your participation here, I'm not surprised that that communities
you are involved in benefit from your knowing the list rules. However
moderate sized communities of reasonable people frequently can last a
long time without list rules and without significant problems.
> I suppose if all of these official guidelines are just guidelines and
> everything *is* allowed, then I have no problem. If this is the case,
> please let me know so that I can continue to violently express *my* view?
There isn't a history of specifically disallowing things. However the
informal guideline is that this list exists to discuss reasons why the
OSI should or should not approve specific licenses. Digressions from
that subject matter are tolerated as long as they are reasonable. If
the digression goes on at any length at all, it is probably not a
reasonable digression. If it goes on long enough that people are
asking you to stop, it is assuredly not a reasonable digression.
And yes, I've overstepped those guidelines in the past. I try not to now.
More information about the License-discuss