Quoting Michael Tiemann (
tiemann@...):
> Last December the SocialText folks made the decision to submit their
> licnese for review, which we appreciate.
Point of clarification: _Did_ SocialText in fact submit a licence?
What I remember seeing was a one-paragraph patch ("GAP" = Generic
Attribution Provision) that could be applied against unspecified
existing licences, presumably including but not limited to MPL v. 1.1
(though the proposal I saw did not say so).
Do I correctly guess that the Board is construing that as, effectively,
a submission for OSI certification of the result of concatenating MPL
v. 1.1 + the GAP paragraph?
It strikes me that before the merits of a licence can be meaningfully
evaluated, the proposer ordinarily needs to... well... submit a licence.
At least, that's what it's always said on
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval , to the
best of my recollection.
(OSI of course may want to construe as indicated, or similar, in the
name of moving things forward. I just wanted to point out the confusion
that has been caused by SocialText's not following the documented
procedure, to the best of my knowledge.)
--
Cheers, A mosquito cried out in pain: The cause of his sorrow
Rick Moen "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" Was para-dichloro
rick@... Diphenyltrichloroethane.
