SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Matthew Flaschen]

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

Thank you.  I'll try to keep contributing to that as appropriate.

Matthew Flaschen

> 
> 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
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070120/721e1117/attachment.sig>