Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 
>>I can't imagine any unproven new license entering on any tier other
>>than "not recommended".  Not much of a stick to pound people with if
>>they know they're going to get hit no matter what.
> 
> 
> Wow.  Is this the consensus view of the board?  That the existing set of 
> licenses most likely can not be improved?

"unproven" and "entering" are the key words in what Russ wrote.  According to the
discussions that have been made here, licenses are not going to be assigned into
a tier never to move (although that is likely if the license is not well-adopted
or abandoned by the originator.)

Maybe the existing set of licenses cannot be improved.  But "improvement" is
not an objective measure.

The trouble is that board believes it is desirable, and therefore must be possible
to recognize licenses that encourage innovation and progress and discourage the
approval of all others, using non-democratic and poorly defined criteria not part
of the OSD.

The arguments and delays laid down in the path of the OVPL here on license discuss
are unprecedented.  The official response to this is "No, we aren't discouraging you."