a plea

[Chris Travers]

On 9/10/07, Scott Shattuck <Scott.Shattuck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +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 2) a previously submitted license/revision is being withdrawn;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


How can these be addressed without discussing sub-points, supporting
arguments, etc?
Wouldn't your proposal provide for approval of licenses with less
understanding of what they actually mean?
Is that a good thing?


Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070913/3144eeb2/attachment.html>