For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Tony Bowden]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> Russ Nelson said, "Do not use the Adaptive Public License as a
> precedent.  It is one of the worst licenses we ever approved." ... I
> I see no evidence that anyone considered such OSD #10 issues while
> APL was under consideration. Really, it doesn't look like the license
> was thoughtfully considered at all.

Is there a way for OSI to reverse a decision to approve a license?

Should the APL be reconsidered, more thoughtfully this time?

To have a scenario (and I'm not saying that we have that scenario here -
just raising the more abstract question) where someone could release
under one license and be officially Open Source, but to have an almost
identical (and. perhaps, better) license rejected as not OSD compatible
because the "ok" one is actually bad precedent, would be a little odd.

Tony