License for approval

[Matthew Flaschen]

Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen writes:
>  > UOML 1.1 is also vague.  What does "the work should conform to UOML." 
>  > mean?  "Conform" is not defined anywhere in the license.
> 
> It's not vague ... it's perfectly clear what the license means.  The
> work should conform to UOML, just as it says.

Dictionary.com defines conform as any of (among others):

*to act in accordance or harmony; comply

*to act in accord with the prevailing standards, attitudes, practices, 
etc., of society or a group: One has to conform in order to succeed in 
this company.

*to be or become similar

I don't think this is simple at all.  It would be improved by having an 
actual conformance test attached as an exhibit to the license.

> The problem is that you
> then have to have someone who decides whether it conforms to the UOML.
> Who will that be, and are they a disinterested party or is it the UOML
> Foundation?

As currently written, it appears it would have to be a judge or jury, 
and I don't think they'd have much to go on.

Matt Flaschen