[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 4 08:25:19 UTC 2007
Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
> Rick Moen wrote:
> >Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
> >The defined process OSI as an organisation long ago established requires
> >as a prerequisite that the user of a licence submit their licences for
> >approval. It does not as a body engage in theoretical examinations of
> >licences that _might_ be used and _might_ be evualted _if_ they were
> >ever submitted.
> Yet this is at least a policy formal or informal that if I were to
> submit a license which prohibits redistribution of source and mandates
> DRM that it would be rejected. Thus the discussion is appropriate (and
> I would say probably more appropriate than a bunch of hackers discussing
> trademark law).
It's certainly appropriate, and we've been having it. I was just taking
care to say that it's not to be confused with OSI's process -- a point
that seemed worth making, since the only thing submitted, to my
knowledge, from that market segment was not a licence, but rather a
patch against some unspecified subset of 58 approved licences.
> I did not mean to say the GAP or Exhibit B, only the above referenced
> linked license which is less intrusive than most of the Exhibit Bs
> that I've seen, granted I don't particularly LIKE it.
I think it's telling that Suominen's Attribution Assurance Licence
seldom seems to get actually used, and only for obscure projects -- nor
mentioned except as a debate point when someone wants to cajole OSI.
More information about the License-discuss