SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael Tiemann (tiemann at redhat.com):

> Last December the SocialText folks made the decision to submit their
> licnese for review, which we appreciate.  

Point of clarification:  _Did_ SocialText in fact submit a licence?  
What I remember seeing was a one-paragraph patch ("GAP" = Generic
Attribution Provision) that could be applied against unspecified
existing licences, presumably including but not limited to MPL v. 1.1
(though the proposal I saw did not say so).

Do I correctly guess that the Board is construing that as, effectively,
a submission for OSI certification of the result of concatenating MPL
v. 1.1 + the GAP paragraph?

It strikes me that before the merits of a licence can be meaningfully
evaluated, the proposer ordinarily needs to... well... submit a licence.
At least, that's what it's always said on
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval , to the
best of my recollection.

(OSI of course may want to construe as indicated, or similar, in the
name of moving things forward.  I just wanted to point out the confusion
that has been caused by SocialText's not following the documented
procedure, to the best of my knowledge.)


-- 
Cheers,           A mosquito cried out in pain:       The cause of his sorrow
Rick Moen         "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"  Was para-dichloro
rick at linuxmafia.com                                   Diphenyltrichloroethane.