SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Sounds rational.  Suggestions:

1. Set up two mailing lists (I can do that if Russ's services are not 
available to that task)
2. Schedule 3 IRC meetings for each group (temporally separated) - I 
don't have an IRC server but we can probably use any number of public ones
3. Set up 3 public read-only, private (for those on the list/IRC chats) 
read-write wiki pages (I can also do that) where two separate position 
papers can be written.

-Andy

PS I'm willing to coordinate the "against", but there are more qualified 
people on this list for that.

Michael Tiemann wrote:
> Last December the SocialText folks made the decision to submit their
> licnese for review, which we appreciate.  The license-discuss list has
> been full of discussion, but that discussion has not yet been reduced to
> a coherent argument either for or against.  Rather, we have heard many
> many opinions as to what one person does or doesn't like about the
> SocialText license, attribution in general, or positions that others
> have advanced for or against either topic.
>
> As I see it right now, either the OSI Board can attempt to pick up all
> these disparate pieces, try to place them together (where they fit)
> separate them (where they conflict) and then judge whether one position
> or another is more compelling in light of the OSD.  That's an easy task
> when all the pieces fit together and all land strongly to one side.
> In the case of the SocialText license, I feel there's significant risk
> that if we take on the responsibility of making the arguments, we may
> create a bias that is not faithful to the real arguments you want to
> make.  Therefore, we'd like to invite those who think we should not
> approve the SocialText license to work out a common position on *why* we
> should not approve it, which could inform how SocialText could remedy
> your concerns.  And we'd like to invite those who think we should
> approve it (or should approve it with some minor change) to work out a
> common position on why we *should* approve it.  If one or both sides are
> willing to do this, I think that the Board's decision process will
> appear much more transparent.
>
> One way or another, the Board owes SocialText and the open source
> community a ruling, and we'd like to do as good a job as we can.  If the
> challenge to organize is taken up, we'll set a timetable based on input
> from the position leaders.  If no organization effort is apparent, the
> board will take it upon itself to make the decision by the end of next
> month (which gives time for one meeting to discuss and one meeting to
> decide).  Thanks!
>
> M
>
>
>
>   


-- 
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org