Netapp license approval retraction with apologies

Matthew C.Weigel weigel at
Wed Feb 20 01:58:12 UTC 2002

On Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 08:29 p, Topper, Anthony wrote:

> We understand the desire to have one "Common Public License" with 
> no messy
> variations. We think it is an excellent license, hence our desire 
> for our own small variation of it. The issue that had our 
> attorney's concerned was IBM as the sole steward of change and NY 
> as the applicable law.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like the OSI should encourage or 
require licenses that have such specific language to be submitted 
in template form, or to at the least 'approve' the template - and 
require that derivatives of the template, modified as templates are 
intended to be modified, not be restricted.

Otherwise, there is the 'one license per package' problem that the 
OSD already attempts to prevent.

weigel at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list