For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Russ Nelson]

Tony Bowden writes:
 > 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?

Not really.  Not without risking the trademark.

 > 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.

Not really.  The world isn't a perfect place.  People make mistakes
all the time.  Jesus screwed up.  He MUST have, otherwise He wasn't
human, He was just a god who was slumming.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | In my head, I'm
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | violating your
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | software patent.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | So sue me!