For approval: MXM Public license

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

>From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu] 

>> All current CC licenses allow the core right to redistribute a work
>> for non-commercial purposes without modification.

>Actually, Dev Nations
>(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/) does not allow me
>to do even that, because I do not live in a developing nation.

Dev Nations is retired.

>> But you also don't NEED to say anything about all CC licenses.  The 
>> license banners are very clear in your rights and obligations.

>Most users are not going to look at those.  The point is, there is no
>single principle behind CC I can tell people about.

CC proponents would likely disagree with your interpretation.

>> Not if the license arbiter says "out of my jurisdiction".

>It's not out of OSI's jurisdiction.  OSI's jurisdiction is software, and
>that's exactly what this is about.

OSI's jurisdiction is currently limited to just open source software 
(that's what the mark is for)...which MXM would not be.  

Back on topic I agree with Russ's suggestion that it simply be called 
something else...the question for the other list is whether OSI has or 
wants an official opinion on whether it be called "Shared Source", 
"Read-Only Source" or "Source-Available Software" or if it prefers 
other folks to make that distinction.

If we don't provide a preferred term then we can't very well complain 
if folks adopt the term "Shared Source" for this kind of stuff. 

Cross posted so that we can continue this solely on license-discuss.