License for approval

[Wang Donglin]

The mail has been rebounced by Russ, resend again

>How about terms like this:
>If the software contains read/write document function, it should be able to read/write a document pure via UOML call. If UOML Alliance specify authorized test tools, and the software can't pass the test, it should be revised within 90 days after receiving the official notice from UOML Alliance.
>
>-Alex
>Chair
>OASIS UOML-X TC
>
>
>>Matthew Flaschen writes:
>> > UOML 1.1 is also vague.  What does "the work should conform to UOML." 
>> > mean?  "Conform" is not defined anywhere in the license.
>>
>>It's not vague ... it's perfectly clear what the license means.  The
>>work should conform to UOML, just as it says.  The problem is that you
>>then have to have someone who decides whether it conforms to the UOML.
>>Who will that be, and are they a disinterested party or is it the UOML
>>Foundation?  Is it an automated test which anyone can run and which
>>doesn't change over the course of that licensed work (in other words,
>>the test ships with the software; the test code is immutable, of
>>course; as long as your modifications of the software pass the test,
>>the you continue to have a license.)
>>
>>-- 
>>--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | Software that needs
>>Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | documentation is software
>>521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | that needs repair.
>>Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | 
>>
>
>