License Committee Report for June 2010
Russ Nelson
nelson at crynwr.com
Thu Jun 3 01:45:21 UTC 2010
I agree with you, but I want license-review members to know that the
committee report has been published, and I want OSI board members to
see the committee report. Would anyone object if I simply sent the
same exact email to both addresses separately?
-russ
Andrew Oliver writes:
> Not really to OSI@ unless you have a legit complaint about the license
> chair's report.
> Cross posting the license-review discussion to osi@ is a bit on the
> annoying side as it
> tends to result in a very verbose version of what ends up in the report.
>
> -Andy
>
> 2010/6/1 Joel Rees <joel_rees at sannet.ne.jp>:
> > Is just replying appropriate here?
> >
> > On 平成 22/06/01, at 13:24, Russ Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> --
> >>
> >> Title: Nameless license
> >> Submission: http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:1005:201004
> >> License: In the submission
> >> Comments: None
> >> Recommend: Prompt license-review to discuss this proposed license.
> >
> > I would definitely like to see some discussion. Specifically,
> >
> > (1) Can we template a license and allow room for a non-binding section to
> > expose a bit more of the authors' intent in extending the license?
> >
> > Maybe I should rename the "explanations" section to "comments"?
> >
> > (2) I think it's necessary to formally acknowledge the inclusion of public
> > domain code and formally assert a lack of copyright claim on the public
> > domain portions. I'm sure I can word my comments more precisely and
> > concisely, but the claims exclusion clause in the license proper is the best
> > I can think of at this moment.
> >
> > (3) I can't afford a lawyer to help me, and I apologize for submitting it
> > without having a lawyer check it first.
> >
> >> Prompt submittor to name the license.
> >
> > In the words of the famous geek, "erk".
> >
> > Uhm, I suppose, since my use of public-domain code in my BIF-C project is
> > the reason this license exists, I could call it the "BIF-C license."
> > Otherwise, it could be called something like a public domain excluding
> > copyright claim license -- "PDECCL" , but that would invite
> > misinterpretation.
> >
> > Joel Rees
> > (waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out,
> > to test Steve's willingness to switch again.)
> >
> > (PS: Sorry about forgetting to reply list and pumping more mail directly
> > into your mailbox, there, Russ.)
> >
More information about the License-review
mailing list