SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> 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.

Including, IMHO, submitting an actual license rather than just a 
provision, since the meaning of the provision can change depending upon 
the license.

 	Brian