License for approval

[Matthew Flaschen]

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

I don't think the UOML 1.1 license is compliant; it still violates OSD 
#10, in my opinion.  I also think it is redundant to SISSL, which is a 
bit burdensome and unpopular, but is at least OSD-compliant.

UOML 1.1 is also vague.  What does "the work should conform to UOML." 
mean?  "Conform" is not defined anywhere in the license.

Matt Flaschen