<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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'>Karl Fogel wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>I'm so definitely, certainly, positively not interested in having off-list conversations about this process. It's hard enough keeping up with the on-list stuff! :-) <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I’m now with Karl on this. Sorry for going private too early in the game. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Now I’ll say it publicly: I formally object to any attempt by OSI to pretend that the <u>current</u> list of “recommended licenses” has any value or validity, and I request that you NOT patch it by putting useless explanations around it. Please start a meaningfu<u>l community</u> process to develop license selection guidelines and explanations of the differences among licenses, and leave the politics and biases on the cutting room floor.<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>P.S. Some added thoughts since my previous emails as simple examples of the biases that I’ve seen:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[I’ll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the list of OSI-approved licenses” as “popular, widely used, or have strong communities.” Is it because there are defenders of the MPL 2.0 on the OSI board? Is that honest, fair, unbiased and legitimate?]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[I’ll add something also about the absence of the AGPL or the OSL 3.0 on the list: Both of those licenses have been rejected by Google internally because such licenses are not friendly to their SaaS models. Is that why they both are omitted from the list despite their popularity, wide use, and strong communities?]<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: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@red-bean.com] <br>Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 8:24 AM<br>To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com<br>Cc: Luis Villa<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>"Lawrence Rosen" <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>lrosen@rosenlaw.com</span></a>> writes:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Karl, lest you mistakenly conclude that I support this proposal, I <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>attach a private email I sent to Luis this weekend. I'm not going <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>public yet, because I hope there is some chance still to avoid <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>resurrecting this entire argument again and avoid having to convince an <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>unsuspecting public that OSI's popularity list is useless for any <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>analytical purposes. But I will try my best to do that if OSI continues <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>on this path without a valid intellectual basis for its list. Do you really need that?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Feel free to copy the OSI board. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I'm so definitely, certainly, positively not interested in having off-list conversations about this process. It's hard enough keeping up with the on-list stuff! :-)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-Karl<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>****************</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>Here’s the email I sent to Luis:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText>[off-list]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Hi Luis,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I appreciate that you're trying to do good here on an issue that has lingered for a long time, but I'll fight OSI all the way on this. Any attempt to list such licenses as CDDL or MPL 2.0 while omitting OSL/AFL/NOSL 3.0 will be met with resistance. There is FAR more use of my licenses than CDDL or some others. MPL 2.0 is mostly Mozilla, which has some "friends" on the OSI board. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>This selection process is riddled with cronyism, misinformation, and unnecessary politics. Not good at all!!!!<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>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>From: Karl Fogel <a href="mailto:[mailto:kfogel@red-bean.com]"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>[mailto:kfogel@red-bean.com]</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:14 PM<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>license-discuss@opensource.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>reorganize the OSI licensing pages<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><snip> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>