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

[Matthew Flaschen]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
>> Well, I noted the grammatical problems in my comparison of AAL to GAP (a
>> list post), and one would dearly hope he (or an employee) is subscribed
>> to the list and reads post relevant to his submission.
>>   
> I highly doubt he's paying close attention:
> http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/11/certifiable.html

It seems you're right, but that's his problem.  We're not going to force
him to submit a corrected GAP.

>> From that post he ssems to regard this as an "everyman" forum beneath
>> him.  If some desire to get clarification is there we'll have to make
>> the approach.

Honestly, clarification is unlikely to change the decision.

As for: "I already find the license-discuss mailing list full of noise,
engaged in personality conflicts and not deliberating the approval in
question.":

He's right that there are sometime personality conflicts.  However, it's
Socialtext's fault people deliberate the wrong license.  Socialtext
said, "Socialtext has adopted the attribution provision for its own
license" (http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?attribution_memo)
which is simply wrong.  Exhibit B (used in the SPL) and GAP (submitted
to the list) are completely different.

CC your reply to the list if you want.

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/20070121/d4ccea8e/attachment.sig>