[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Aloha Russ, Greetings All,

This is a somewhat challenging triage, as the participants are  
combative and the meaning of the exchange is not the same as the  
literal text.

On Sep 24, 2007, at 17:52PDT (CA), Russ Nelson wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov writes:
>> Nor this is a structured approval request conforming to whatever  
>> rules
>> you might have at the moment.
>
> Okay, since you have told me not to, I won't include your license in
> the next committee report.
>
>> Show initiative, OSI board.
>
> The world doesn't need your license approved.  You need your license
> approved so that you may use our trademark.  If you choose not to do
> that, then that is your choice.  *I* don't need to show initiative;
> you do.  That's why those requirements are there -- to reduce license
> proliferation.  Martin Fink no doubt believes that he set OSI on the
> course of reducing license proliferation, but we were doing it years
> before he ever noticed it was a problem.
>
> Basically, you're asking me to do your homework.

The core issue as relevant to this discussion is the validity of the  
submission.

I've set up a ticket focused on this issue:

   https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/61

... and have triaged Russ' input as the first comment.

While I believe that I can read between the lines of this exchange, I  
can also look to input from the other participants in this discussion  
for guidance.

First, each other participant has clearly recognized that Alexander  
was making a request for approval and has treated it as such.

Second, Matthew Flaschen has explicitly requested guidance on how to  
make this a valid request. (See https://osi.osuosl.org/ticket/ 
31#comment:3)

Based on this, I am paraphrasing Russ' comment as:

   License approval requests must follow the OSI license approval  
process

I'm also noting Matt's comment as a response to Russ' comment.

Cheers!
--zak