Approval of IWL - Consolidated Response

[Russ Nelson]

Gernot Heiser writes:
 > We really tried to do the right thing. We looked for an OSI-approved
 > license to match our requirements, and the closest we could find was
 > the SleepyCat license, which is not re-usable.
 > 
 > So we applied minimal changes (plus some clarifications) to make it
 > re-usable. This would seem like the obvious approach.

Unfortunately, no.  Not all licenses comply equally well with the Open
Source Definition.  It's definitely NOT a good idea to seek OSD
compliance by starting with an existing license.  Our understanding of
what is required by the OSD has changed over the years, and the
community has come to realize that more Open Source licenses are not a
good thing.

In particular, the Sleepycat license is an amalgam of licenses,
required for historical purposes.  It should not be templatized and it
should not be reused.

 > It seems to me that arguments are boiling down to OSD compliance not
 > being sufficient.

You've been told that the license doesn't comply with the OSD, so I
don't know why you would say this.

-- 
--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          |