[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Matthew Flaschen]

Peter Kloprogge wrote:
> 
> I do apologize for perhaps missing the point (I'm new to this discussion group 
> and I'm asking questions to truly get a deeper understanding of OSI). Going 
> through the website most arguments against Exhibit B licenses seem to be the 
> notion of impairing commerce. These arguments even surfaced in this group in 
> relation to the SocialText license and attribution in general. So it felt 
> off-topic to discuss these licenses in relation to OSD#10. Don't get me wrong, I 
> understand the rationale of #10 but it feels like there is a dis-agreement on 
> the more crucial issue of attribution in general.

No part of OSD is off-topic in a licensing approval discussion.  I think
your analysis is faulty.  In my recollection, OSD #10 came first in the
GAP discussion and, along with OSD #3, is still the main issue.

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/f63260ee/attachment.sig>