a plea

[Scott Shattuck]

+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2) a previously submitted license/revision is being withdrawn;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
>