SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Matthew Flaschen]

kloprogge at planet.nl wrote:
> Ross,
> 
> 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?

The Board will not approve GAP simply because you promise to improve it.
 First, this promise can not be relied upon.  Second, even if GAP were
approved, then made more compliant, the new version would still need to
be submitted separately.  Thus, SocialText should make a new submission
(addressing the many problems noted) *now* if it wants to optimize its
changes of getting GAP approved.

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/20070123/c94f06ae/attachment.sig>