SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

kloprogge at kloprogge at
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  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Mayfield <ross.mayfield at>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:17:26 
To:Rick Moen <rick at>
Cc:license-discuss at
Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

To clarify,

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> wrote:
> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield at
> > 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 , 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
>, 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,

Ross Mayfield
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield at
t. +1-650-323-0800
f. +1-650-323-0801
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

More information about the License-discuss mailing list