License for approval

Simon Phipps webmink at
Fri Mar 28 11:48:34 UTC 2008

On Mar 28, 2008, at 04:33, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Russ Nelson wrote:
>> Now, what you *can* do is say this:
>>   If the OASIS committee has determined that your modified software
>>   complies with the UOML standard, then you are free to distribute
>>   your software under $ACADEMIC license terms.  If we decide you
>>   haven't, then you have to distribute your software under the
>>   $RECIPROCAL license terms.
> Isn't that what the SISSL tried to do?

Yes, that was exactly the mechanism used by SISSL[1], which is still  
an OSI approved license although deprecated for current use by its  
author and o longer in use for any major project[2]. If Ms Shi wants  
to mandate a standard in this way, SISSL is probably an ideal license  
to use.


[2] It was originally used as one of the two licenses for

More information about the License-review mailing list