SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Andrew C. Oliver]

As I have attempted to incorporate each of these arguments where they 
seemed
valid here: http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>   
>> The separate list and channels was just an idea (like working groups). 
>> I DO think having a few real-time discussions would be good.  No
>> matter.  I think they're trying to get US to organize the two positions
>> rather than just hashing it out and then leaving it to them to find
>> everything and sort through a few megs of data.  Otherwise its just a
>> lot of back and forth on a mail list and then no formal data on how it
>> did or did not influence the process.  Are you willing to help put
>> together an organized set of arguments collaboratively with others?
>>     
>
> Yes.  I suppose this is reasonable, but I will be concerned if a
> different process is applied for the next license.  I oppose the
> provision in its current form, so I'll first point to some key posts
> arguing against it.  My apologies for any misinterpretations or unfair
> crediting:
>
> David Woolley originally questioned the "same size" term (something
> changed from AA to GAP)
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11904:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).
>
> Michael Tiemann implied the license may be unjustified special pleading,
> and noted that many organizations and companies (including Red Hat) have
> succeeded on the current model
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn)
>
> Nicholas Goodman brought up the still unanswered question of whether two
> programs with different GAP brands can be combined
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).
>    Rick Moen later elaborated on this in
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12034:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
> , wondering whether both logos would have to be displayed and asserting
> that this could become a substantial burden.
>
> He also later invoked OSD #10 explicitly
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11992:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm),
> saying that the license should at least have an exception for programs
> without a GUI.  John Cowan reiterated this, questioning what would
> happen if someone used badgeware code in a commandline app
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:11996:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm).
>
> I noted that GAP could not be seen as a "middle ground", because it is
> meant for application to any license (not only the more permissive ones
> like MPL)
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12080:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm)
>
> Rick Moen noted that GAP was different enough from AAL to mandate
> separate consideration
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp).
>    This inspired me to analyze the differences between AAL and GAP, and
> conclude they all harmed OSD compliance.
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp)
> I believe the most harmful addition is "same size",
>
> Ben Tilly first brought up the vital point that OSD #10 didn't exist
> when AAL was approved
> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12135:dlaoeafkbfdnkpjnojmk).
>  In my own opinion, this makes it fundamentally flawed as a
> justification now.
>
> This clearly isn't an organized oppose position, but it has all the
> points one should contain (in my view).
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>
>   


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