a plea
Scott Shattuck
Scott.Shattuck at gmail.com
Mon Sep 10 22:23:02 UTC 2007
+10000
I might even go so far as to suggest that only messages specifically
relevant to the following points be acceptable:
1) a new license or license revision is being submitted;
2) a previously submitted license/revision is being withdrawn;
3) a submitted license is being questioned relative to conformance
with a specific OSI clause
3a) a "show of hands" is being requested (+1/-1) from the community
relative to the specific clause objection
4) a submitted license has been recommended for:
4a) rejection based on failure to meet the one or more specifically
called out OSI clause requirements,
4b) approval based on no specific clauses being violated,
4c) a "show of hands" is being requested (+1/-1) from the community
relative to the recommendation
5) announcement of the board's decision, based in part, but not
wholly upon, the community vote.
I could go further and suggest that all messages use a structured
form defined by the OSI ala:
Subject: license_name [action]
License Name: _________________
License Action: [submission | withdrawal | revision | objection |
rejection | approval ]
OSI Clause(s): [for use with objection/rejection]
Specific Notes: license fails to meet OSI requirements because while
IANAL [......]
If the message title and body do not meet these minimum requirements
the message is not forwarded by the list server.
<rant ignore="optional">
Personal views about whether a license: "makes sense", "is
enforceable in ____ jurisdiction", "is compatible with", "makes the
FSF [un]happy", "is legal gibberish", or other random musings and/or
pissing contests are, quite frankly, irrelevant.
When someone submits a license we can presume:
1) they didn't go to the trouble to author it for nothing;
2) they don't care about personal interpretations, particularly since
so many are provided by anal IANAL contributors;
3) they'd like it to be approved/rejected based on specific OSI
clause incompatibilities that are actionable should they care to
resubmit;
4) they sure didn't put up with the OSI's arcane/incomprehensible
submission rules for nothing (corollary to point 1);
When someone chooses to use a license (even one the entire community
feels might be a poor choice) we can presume:
1) they can reasonably assume it meets the OSI definition if it's
been approved;
2) they didn't make their choice without some thought, and perhaps
even legal advice;
3) they accept the risk that the license of their choice might be
difficult/impossible to enforce;
4) OR they just don't care because it's a hack they did in their
spare time/they're not a business.
Should those presumptions prove to be false so what? It's their
business/$/code at risk.
</rant>
ss
On Sep 10, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> Count me in with Luis's lot, concerned that the sheer volume of
> messages on this list threatens to prevent the involvement of more
> than a small group. Therefore, I plea that we discontinue the
> conversations about tort law, the mechanics or ethics of
> sublicensing, or other fairly off-topic conversations. It's
> especially annoying when those continue to happen under an old no-
> longer-relevant subject line, and especially disappointing when
> that is done by people who should know better. I think these
> topics do deserve a place to be discussed, but that ain't license-
> discuss.
>
> Brian
>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list