License for approval

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Ms. Shi,

This is useful, but I don't see an answer the question "Why is the UOML 
license necessary when the similar SISSL is already available for your 
use?" I suspect that Russ was expecting an explanation rather than a 
bare statement of where the text differs. Such an explanation should 
also answer "Why will the UOML license be a success when the similar 
SISSL has failed and is abandoned by its creator?"

    Thanks

    Bruce

史研 wrote:
> Sorry, 
> those two files should be under follow links:
>
>  uoml vs sissl:
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_sissl.html
> http://www.uoml.org/sissl_uoml.html
>
> Best rgds,
> Allison Shi
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "史研" <allison_shi at sursen.com>
> To: "license-review at opensource.org" <license-review at opensource.org>
> Cc: "王东临" <dlwang at sursen.com>,"刘明娟" <liumingjuan at sursen.com>, 
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 15:16:19 +0800
> Subject: License for approval
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> We like to requesting For Approval of the UOML License again:
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.1.html
> license name: UOML License 1.1 
> submission type: Approval 
>
> Other documents include:
> uoml vs cddl: 
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml-cddl.html
> uoml vs sissl:
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.1.html
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.1.html
>
> Best rgds,
> Allison Shi
> Sursen Corp
>
>