Request for Comment

Andrew C. Oliver acoliver at
Tue Jan 23 05:13:12 UTC 2007

Ben Tilly wrote:
> As I mentioned in my discussion with Rick Moen, I believe that many of
> the UI issues are also potential OSD #6 violations.  For instance a
> requirement for a logo of a given size prevents developing derivative
> code for conveying information over mobile telephones or to blind
> people.
> Therefore even if one questions whether OSD #10 failed to capture the
> intent of the Board at that time, those are still issues under OSD #6.
Can you complete your argument here in a more digestible form?  If not I 
will attempt to go back through the archive again and sort it out, but I 
was having trouble unraveling what subthreads were not based on GAP but 
other attribution licenses and which ones were.
> Similarly for the OSD #3 complaint, I think that argument is weak.
> Essentially it is, "If code under this license is combined with code
> from similar ones, the result becomes impractical."  However one gets
> the same effect from taking any pair of incompatible licenses and
> joining them together.  The best-known example is the GPL and any
> other license.  It may be argued that one may expect different
> licenses to generally be immiscible, here similar licenses are.  But
> we already have examples of that as well, namely the GPL with clause 8
> invoked is incompatible with the GPL.
Do you think it is weak enough that you can't agree with it at all and 
advocate its removal from the main paper?  Does anyone else agree with 
you?  I felt there was a rough enough consensus on OSD 3 to include the 
arguments.  Personally I agree there is less meat here than #10 which is 
why I included it first.

No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration

More information about the License-discuss mailing list