OVPL vote results

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi all,

On Nov 11, 2005, at 4:54 PM, David Ryan wrote:
> b. When modifications to the Software are released under this  
> license, a non-exclusive royalty-free right is granted to the  
> initial developer of the Software to distribute your modification  
> in future versions of the Software provided such versions remain  
> available under these terms in addition to any other license(s) of  
> the initial developer.
>
> The goal of the OVPL was to create a similar license which created  
> a re-usable template for this license.  I do not understand how the  
> QPL can be deemed *not* to discriminate against persons or groups  
> of persons and how OVPL does?

While I can appreciate the difficulty of the board's decision, I do  
think David raises at least one valid point.

  Would the Board be willing to either:

a) Admit that approving the QPL was a mistake; and that if submitted  
today it would not be approved

OR

b) Explain what language the OVPL might adopt that would align with  
the QPL's term's sufficiently to obtain OSI approval

OR

c) Explain why the QPL was a special case (perhaps due to its unique  
role in the community at that time), and thus not a valid precedent  
for a general purpose license

I completely respect the Board's right to the interpret the OSD and  
make these difficult judgement calls.

However, with that right comes the responsibility to educate the  
community about the reasoning,
if for no other reason than to prevent similar problems in the future
so that others do not have to go through what David did.

Thanks,
- Ernie P.
Speaking for Myself only