SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
kloprogge at planet.nl
kloprogge at planet.nl
Tue Jan 23 06:05:54 UTC 2007
You mention that you intend to adopt the GAP and become OSI certified. It would be helpful for some of the discussions to be a bit more precise in the planning. When do you plan to submit the full license to the OSI board? You also mentioned that you think you could answer the general concerns about GAP. Why don't you actually start addressing those concerns in this discussion group? Are you planning to change the provisions or are you planning to disclose your intent with the hope that will be enough for the certification?
I understand that you enjoyed monitoring the discussions but I invite you to participate a bit more in the actual discussions.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Ross Mayfield <ross.mayfield at socialtext.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:17:26
To:Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Cc:license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments
First, we are addressing the general problem of attribution with GAP.
In my opinion, this is a choice to help solve a general problem for
and with the community where others have not and doing so generically
instead out of personal interest (and self-promotion as seems to be
the tone of part of this conversation).
As I've clarified before, Socialtext intends to both adopt the GAP and
become OSI Certified. We did not submit SPL for approval, or claim
that Socialtext is OSI Certified today.
On 1/22/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield at socialtext.com):
> > Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> > input.
> You're quite welcome.
> I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
> "Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:
> The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
> this text:
> Socialtext Public License
> All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
> Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the
> Appendix page [link]).
> Following that hyperlink takes one to
> http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
> out like this:
> Why the Appendix
> Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
> not found in the original MPL.
> An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
> standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.
> Er, one problem: As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
> December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
> has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
> Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
> modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
> Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
> ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc. You submitted to OSI, as discussed here,
> something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
> (thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
> Socialtext Open.
> Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
> opportunity. Thank you.
> "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
> make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
> and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
> the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
ross.mayfield at socialtext.com
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private
More information about the License-discuss