[License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval

[Gervase Markham]

Hi Heather,

On 07/09/15 18:49, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> Re Notices.  I remember the discussion about "unbloating" the
> licenses notices when we were working on MPL2. 

Well, this isn't primarily an unbloating issue, although it does help
with that. It's more that when this clause is in the Apache license,
_nobody_does_it_. Take LibreOffice as one example; they import a load of
Apache code from elsewhere, and I don't see a "This file was modified on
2015-04-31" or similar statement in any of them. Charitably, you could
say that their standard MPL/Apache header implied that the code has been
modified, but there's certainly no date.

> We prefer to include
> this requirement for the time being, for the information we hope it
> will preserve.

Can you give a scenario in which that information might be useful to
someone?

> Re: Compatibility of various "flavors" that might result from
> variance of terms under 3.5B.  We understand this could become an
> issue.   As steward of our software projects, we hope we can sort out
> downstream variances on a practical level by harmonizing
> contributions upstream.

I'm sorry, I don't follow :-( Can you expand?

Gerv