FOR APPROVAL: The license of Multics

[Zak Greant]

On 11/14/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 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.

D'oh. Meant to overwrite #33 with the description in #35. Accidentally
created a new ticket instead.

> Also, I don't know if your characterization of major/minor is quite
> right, but that's a minor issue.

Do you mean that the issues aren't properly prioritized or that
prioritization isn't the right approach?

> The biggest issue is that there's no
> particular justification for approving the license, and it may be avoidable.

Agreed.

Cheers!
--zak