[License-review] When a submission for approval stops being one (was: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Kyle Mitchell (kyle at kemitchell.com):

> Clearly that backfired as far as your thoughts go ... and
> for that _I_ am sorry.

I hope I did not sound dyspeptic, especially not towards your estimable
self.  If I hadn't respected your effort, I would've skipped this
thread.

> As others have mentioned, many consumers, distributors, and
> service providers of note require OSI-approved license
> terms.  Turning all that down, even temporarily, costs.  The
> more it costs---another way of saying, the more valuable OSI
> approval becomes---the more benefit a new license has to
> offer over all prior OSI-approved alternatives to make sense
> for adoption before approval.

And yet, my point remains:  Speaking for myself, I'm skeptical of any
allegedly valuable licence with zero (or nearly zero) adoption because,
if compelling, it should have compelled.  For example, MPL & its CDDL
progeny were vital before landing on OSI's doorstep; adoption preceding
submission underlined their point and made them much more worthy of note
than otherwise.

(And, also, I would expect adoption of a compellingly good open source
licence among the many who disregard or are apathetic towards OSI.)

Now, you could rightly say 'Not everyone has the pioneering Web browser
and a major office suite handy to punctuate an argument.'  True enough,
a sign of the cosmos's inherent bias, along with the Cubs making the
World Series only once a century.  But there you have it; what you imply
is a hurdle meriting concern, I call just a pragmatic heuristic at work.  


> I'm just the lawyer.  The ideas come from folks still making
> software full time, still contributing to the community.  I
> was able to hear them, put it together, and do my job.
> That's all.

Well, the lot of you have brought something new into the world that has
real thought behind it.  That is worthy of note and respect.