<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>Luis Villa asked:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>Putting aside the specific basis for your objections for now, why are you objecting now and not in the past five years this list has been in use? Is there a particular change in the context that you think the new draft language introduces, or...?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Luis, I have objected regularly and consistently to that particular list. Look in the archives. I'm tired of OSI suggesting that it will take "another five years" to simply get rid of it. Replace it with something with meaning and purpose. I've offered drafts of that improved categorization. Again, look in the archives.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Or if you prefer not looking in the archives, charter a committee to address the "recommended licenses" list and deal with the politics in public instead of behind the OSI board's implied imprimatur. I will be pleased to address Chuck Swiger’s and other’s comments about how to craft a valuable list in a separate thread after OSI accepts the need to do so and stops propagating licensing nonsense.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Lawrence Rosen<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Office: 707-485-1242<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis@tieguy.org] <br>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:02 AM<br>To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>lrosen@rosenlaw.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Luis Villa writes:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or have <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>> strong communities:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> As long as that list remains, I will object. It is inaccurate, <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> incomplete, misleading, subject to cronyism and personal bias by <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> members of the OSI board of directors, and does not reflect the actual <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> importance or uses of those licenses.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Putting aside the specific basis for your objections for now, why are you objecting now and not in the past five years this list has been in use? Is there a particular change in the context that you think the new draft language introduces, or...?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Luis<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>