FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics

[Matthew Flaschen]

Zak Greant wrote:
> Greetings All,
> 
> I've triaged the messages in this thread, taking every material issue
> raised and putting it into its own ticket.
> 
> As the discussion continues, I'll keep doing this. When new issues are
> raised, they will get their own tickets. When an existing issue is
> discussed, the material points will be added to the appropriate
> ticket.
> 
> Visit https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/32 to see how I have structured things.

That looks great.  However, https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/33 is the same
as https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/35.  They both were meant to refer to
the Multics license missing the standard NO WARRANTY clause (e.g. "THIS
SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED..." in BSD).  I should have said
they were missing a "NO WARRANTY", not a warranty.

Also, I don't know if your characterization of major/minor is quite
right, but that's a minor issue.  The biggest issue is that there's no
particular justification for approving the license, and it may be avoidable.

> This strategy for dealing with discussions helps to ensure that we
> have a good catalogue of every significant issue and that we can
> easily see what we have addressed and what we haven't.

I agree.

Matt Flaschen