Approval of IWL - Consolidated Response

[Matthew Flaschen]

Gernot Heiser wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> Please excuse me for sounding naive, but this whole process has
> totally lost me, and I'm looking for some explanation on how it's
> supposed to work.
> 
> We really tried to do the right thing. We looked for an OSI-approved
> license to match our requirements, and the closest we could find was
> the SleepyCat license, which is not re-usable.

All of the licenses are in fact reusable, though some are not yet 
templatized.

> So we applied minimal changes (plus some clarifications) to make it
> re-usable.

Your "clarifications" change the meaning of the license, and can not be 
considered minimal.

> It seems to me that arguments are boiling down to OSD compliance not
> being sufficient.

On the contrary.  OSD compliance is key, and as I said, your license 
violates OSD #9.

> So the OSD isn't the definition of what's open
> source, but just a partial list of requirements?

Actually, no one has in any way suggested that but you.

Matt Flaschen