License Committee Report for September 2008

[allison shi]

Thanks Bruce. The links are not correct. The correct one are as follow:

uoml vs cddl:
http://www.uoml.org/uoml-cddl.html

uoml vs sissl:
http://www.uoml.org/sissl_uoml.html
http://www.uoml.org/uoml_sissl.html

Best rgds,
Allison Shi

2008/10/31 Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>

> Hello, Ms. Shi,
>
> The "Other documents" links seem to be incorrect.
>
> The basic problem with this license is 3.2: "To ensure the document
> interoperability, the work should conform to UOML. Conformance should be
> tested by UOML Technical Conformance Kit."
>
> This is non-compliant with the Open Source Definition requirement 6,
> prohibiting discrimination against a field of endeavor, and 10, requiring
> the license to be technology-neutral.
>
> It seems to me that we've been through this discussion before. What you are
> asking for, you can do perfectly by means of a certification process rather
> than a software license.
>
> I don't speak for the OSI board, but I can't think of a way that they'd
> ever be able to approve this as written.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bruce
>
>
> allison shi wrote:
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
>
>
> Based on your September's report on the reject reasons to our UOML License,
> we had modified our license and would like to issue our request again,
>
>
>
> license name: UOML License 1.2
>
> submission type: Approval
>
>
>
> you can find the license at http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.2.html
>
>
>
> Other documents include:
>
> uoml vs cddl:
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml-cddl.html
>
>
>
> uoml vs sissl:
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.2.html
> http://www.uoml.org/uoml_license1.2.html
>
>
>
> Here I also like to share the great news that UOML part 1 v1.0 had been
> voted to Oasis International Standard on Oct. 10, 2008.
>
>
>
> Best rgds,
>
>
>
> Allison Shi
>
> Sursen Corp
>
>
>
>
>