Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

[Matthew Flaschen]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> So its covered already.  Excellent.

It's covered (generally) under OSD #10, but perhaps we should mention
that it applies specifically to OSD #6 as well.

Matthew Flaschen

> Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Andrew C. Oliver (acoliver at buni.org):
>>
>>  
>>> Please calm down.
>>>     
>>
>> I was slightly vexed by being misquoted, but otherwise have seldom been
>> less bothered in general.
>>
>>  
>>> Rather than defend yourself ....
>>>     
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you seem to have attributed to my post something not
>> present in it:  I said nothing promoting the merit of either myself
>> personally (having not been aware of being personally under discussion)
>> or of any of my earlier statements.  I merely pointed out that Mr. Tilly
>> had fundamentally misrepresented the latter -- and then corrected what
>> he said.  Again.
>>
>>  
>>> can you perhaps try to stay on the topic please?
>>>     
>>
>> If by "the topic" you mean Socialtext's GAP patch paragraph, my OSD#6
>> analysis of same _was_ recapped inline, in my immediately preceding
>> post.  Please see.  Or, alternatively:
>>  
>>  
>>> I can't sort what of the below has anything to do with this:
>>> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against
>>>     
>>
>> I'm mystified that you could have missed this part, especially since you
>> literally quoted it in its entirety, but will be glad to copy and paste
>> it, once:
>>
>>    Concerning GAP (in distinction to MuleSource's "Exhibit B"), I pointed
>>    out that a licensor invoking its wording...
>>
>>       a display of the same size as found in the [original code]
>>       released by the original licensor
>>
>>    ...could require all derivative works to sport a 500-point logo +
>>    company name + URL display, specifically to make commercial use
>>    impractical.  I.e., the lack of any limit on size and promience
>>    (completely aside from the OSD#10 issue) provides a method for
>>    licensor to effectively prevent competing commercial use.
>>
>> The reasoning should be familiar to you, given that you said something
>> extremely similar on December 12, right here:
>>
>> http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/opensource/2006/12/12/The-Buni-Special-Attribution-License-Proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> 


-------------- 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/20070123/ce4d8975/attachment.sig>