<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Tahoma;
color:navy;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'>Hi Michael: I take it from your
email that the OSI board has approved SimPL. I keep hearing that approval
has been recommended by Russ Nelson’s committee but I have not seen the official
OSI approval announced on this list or posted on the OSI website. Thanks
for clarifying.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'>--Bob Gomulkiewicz</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=3 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
mdtiemann@gmail.com [mailto:mdtiemann@gmail.com] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Michael Tiemann<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, September 26,
2007 5:38 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Matthew Flaschen<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> License Discuss<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: For Approval:
Microsoft Permissive License</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On 9/26/07, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Matthew Flaschen</span></b>
<<a href="mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu">matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu</a>>
wrote:</span></font></p>
<div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
I'm talking about what they use, not what they're supposed to use. I<br>
can give many examples of times OSI has been reluctant to approve an<br>
OSD-compliant license. For instance, they held off on SimPL because
it <br>
was (mistakenly) believed incompatible with GPLv2.</span></font></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
...and because the pretext of that license was to be "a simplified version
of the GPL for people who wanted to use a reciprocal license but were not yet
ready to comprehend the full complexity of the GPL". I think the
term "GPL with training wheels" was the way somebody put it. In
that case, a license whose stated goal was to be a gateway to the GPL had
better be GPL-compatible, or it's not a very good gateway. When the
confusion was cleared up and compatibility was assured, we felt confident to
approve it as the license did do what it promised to do. <br>
<br>
I do believe that if a license is submitted with promise X, then we should
evaluate promise X as well as the OSD. If the only promise of the license
is "we meet the minimum terms of the OSD, and nothing more", then we
should not hold it to a higher standard. This is my personal opinion, not
a defined board policy, but I think others use a similar evaluation function. <br>
<br>
Relevant to this, as I said in my interview with Peter Galli, I saw no reason
to challenge the title of "The Microsoft Community License", because
whether it is a community of one or one thousand, it's perfectly reasonable for
anybody to state the aspiration of creating a community in the world of open
source. I am very liberal when it comes to descriptions that state
aspirations (consider Tim Berners-Lee announcing "The World Wide
Web"!), but very much less so when descriptions are deceptive, such as the
claim of an open standard that, in fact, cannot be implemented or validated
without using proprietary technology. </span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>