License Committee Report for June 2010

[Russ Nelson]

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.)
 > >