[License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Mar 15 21:40:40 UTC 2019

Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce at perens.com):

> You're asking the people who are charged with voting to make a decision to
> also state the *official *position of the organization. Pick one.

I actually meant to say that perhaps those with OSI Board or other
official status should clarify who they are, not that they need to state
what is the official position of the organisation.  Obviously, the
latter gets articulated by voting and official minutes.

(To be clear, I cannot see that there is any such problem, and IMO this
alleged issue has a troubling resemblance to passive-aggressive
gamesmanship -- but said that _if_ there is a perceived problem of lack
of clarity as to who is entitled to speak, collectively, for OSI, then
the obvious remedy is identification.)

Cheers,              "I am a member of a civilization (IAAMOAC).  Step back
Rick Moen            from anger.  Study how awful our ancestors had it, yet
rick at linuxmafia.com  they struggled to get you here.  Repay them by appreciating
McQ! (4x80)          the civilization you inherited."           -- David Brin

More information about the License-discuss mailing list