For Approval: Transitive Grace Period Public Licence, v1.0
nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Feb 18 04:25:58 UTC 2009
> Nobody suggested in the 60-day review that TGPPL is not OSD-
The license review process is more what you'd call "guidelines" than
actual rules. The review takes as long as it takes.
> If there is any reason to doubt that it is OSD- conformant, please
> let me know right away
There are reasons beyond OSD conformance why we might not want to
approve the license. Why? Because we have a trademark to preserve.
If you can figure out some way to comply with the OSD in a way that
does not achieve the desired open source effect, which endangers the
meaning of OSI-Approved trademark, then we MUST deny your license OSI
approval (trademark law gives us no choice).
*Somebody* has to decide what OSD conformance means. It's us.
Trust me on this one: we've given the plank to smart-asses before who
thought that strict OSD compliance (which technically doesn't even
require that you SHIP SOURCE CODE) was sufficient.
Anybody here think that a license which permitted distribution of all
the source code you didn't get would be approved? I thought not. And
yet that would comply with the OSD.
> My recent summary of my understanding of this thread also states that
> the license-discuss review indicates that TGPPL is OSD-conformant:
What license-discuss review? You mean the license-review discussion?
This committee is advisory only. The board makes the final decision.
In this case, I reported the board's decision shortly after it was
made a few weeks ago in Brussels. Consequently, you can set aside any
previous discussion by this committee as inadequate because the board
has decided it was inadequate.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery
Cloudmade supports http://openstreetmap.org/ | slope to prosperity.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter).
More information about the License-review