SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

[Matthew Flaschen]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> As I have attempted to incorporate each of these arguments where they
> seemed
> valid here: http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

Thank you.  I'll try to keep contributing to that as appropriate.

Matthew Flaschen

>
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>  
>>> The separate list and channels was just an idea (like working
>>> groups). I DO think having a few real-time discussions would be
>>> good.  No
>>> matter.  I think they're trying to get US to organize the two positions
>>> rather than just hashing it out and then leaving it to them to find
>>> everything and sort through a few megs of data.  Otherwise its just a
>>> lot of back and forth on a mail list and then no formal data on how it
>>> did or did not influence the process.  Are you willing to help put
>>> together an organized set of arguments collaboratively with others?
>>>    
>>
>> Yes.  I suppose this is reasonable, but I will be concerned if a
>> different process is applied for the next license.  I oppose the
>> provision in its current form, so I'll first point to some key posts
>> arguing against it.  My apologies for any misinterpretations or unfair
>> crediting:
>>
>> David Woolley originally questioned the "same size" term (something
>> changed from AA to GAP)
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11904:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).
>>
>> Michael Tiemann implied the license may be unjustified special pleading,
>> and noted that many organizations and companies (including Red Hat) have
>> succeeded on the current model
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn)
>>
>> Nicholas Goodman brought up the still unanswered question of whether two
>> programs with different GAP brands can be combined
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msp:11929:jfkjkakegkfbihlhcbbn).
>>    Rick Moen later elaborated on this in
>> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12034:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm
>>
>> , wondering whether both logos would have to be displayed and asserting
>> that this could become a substantial burden.
>>
>> He also later invoked OSD #10 explicitly
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11992:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm),
>>
>> saying that the license should at least have an exception for programs
>> without a GUI.  John Cowan reiterated this, questioning what would
>> happen if someone used badgeware code in a commandline app
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:11996:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm).
>>
>> I noted that GAP could not be seen as a "middle ground", because it is
>> meant for application to any license (not only the more permissive ones
>> like MPL)
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12080:200612:oiccemjkkoffgnlmoebm)
>>
>>
>> Rick Moen noted that GAP was different enough from AAL to mandate
>> separate consideration
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp).
>>    This inspired me to analyze the differences between AAL and GAP, and
>> conclude they all harmed OSD compliance.
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:msn:12101:ccpbmhndbgpfnpnikjbp)
>> I believe the most harmful addition is "same size",
>>
>> Ben Tilly first brought up the vital point that OSD #10 didn't exist
>> when AAL was approved
>> (http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:12135:dlaoeafkbfdnkpjnojmk).
>>  In my own opinion, this makes it fundamentally flawed as a
>> justification now.
>>
>> This clearly isn't an organized oppose position, but it has all the
>> points one should contain (in my view).
>>
>> Matthew Flaschen
>>
>>  
>
>

[Matthew Flaschen]

Michael Tiemann wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 18:42 -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Michael Tiemann wrote:
>>> Therefore, we'd like to invite those who think we should not
>>> approve the SocialText license to work out a common position on *why* we
>>> should not approve it, which could inform how SocialText could remedy
>>> your concerns.  And we'd like to invite those who think we should
>>> approve it (or should approve it with some minor change) to work out a
>>> common position on why we *should* approve it.  If one or both sides are
>>> willing to do this, I think that the Board's decision process will
>>> appear much more transparent.
>> I don't understand why the Board feels this is necessary.  This is a
>> discussion list, and I think people's arguments have naturally developed
>> that way.
>
> Usually the discussions have led to a fairly strong consensus, making
> the approval process quite straightforward.

I suppose that's true.  However, if you read carefully, you will see
almost no one who says the provision should be approved in its current
form, i.e. with no changes and applicable to any other OSI licenses.

There are plenty of people who say the license would be fine with one or
another changes, but those changes haven't been made and Socialtext
doesn't seem to want to make them.

  As I said, if nobody wants

> to collect all the bits and try to present them coherently, we'll work
> with what we have, but there's already an effort to do that, which I
> believe will lead to a better result (both a better decision and a
> better understanding as to why the decision was reached).
>
>>   This level of formality has never been requested before (to
>> my knowledge), and seems a bit like instruction creep.  I certainly
>> oppose the idea of creating separate lists and IRC channels.
>
> Yes--me too.  We can organize the thoughts without excluding people from
> the process.

Well, we're now using the wiki pages
(http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_For and
http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against), but I would
encourage people who don't feel like registering or using them to keep
using the list.  Their arguments should be incorporated as appropriate.

Matthew Flaschen

[Andrew C. Oliver-2]

>
> Well, we're now using the wiki pages
> (http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_For and
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against), but I would
> encourage people who don't feel like registering or using them to keep
> using the list.  Their arguments should be incorporated as appropriate.
>
>  
Or they can also email me with their preferred user and password.  I'm
not trying to be
editor-god here, just avoid incorporating medical enhancement products
in the position.  Certainly discussion should take place on the list and
some consensus build before adding.
> Matthew Flaschen
>
>  


--
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org

[Ross Mayfield]

Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
two issues for the group:

1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?

2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?

We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.

Ross Mayfield

[Andrew C. Oliver-2]

No.  Take a look here:
http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#License_is_incomplete_or_poorly_written

And here:
http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#Generic_acceptance_of_this_as_an_amendable_clause

I don't think anyone is against "attribution" so much as logo display
requirements.

-Andy

Ross Mayfield wrote:

> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
> two issues for the group:
>
> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>
> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>
> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.
>
> Ross Mayfield
>
>

--
No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration
http://buni.org

[Matthew Flaschen]

Ross Mayfield wrote:
> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
> two issues for the group:
>
> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?

Yes, this is a serious problem.  More generally, what happens if the
constraints of the original attribution (e.g. "same size" logo) can't be
applied to a new UI.  What does "same size" even mean?  Does it refer to
number of pixels, width at a certain resolution, the length of an SVG
path, or what?  If it's physical size of the image, what if that exceeds
the size of the whole UI? The AAL allowed much more discretion about the
format of the attribution (and besides was approved before OSD #10).

> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?

Yes, and what happens if two attribution licenses conflict or make
extended derivative works difficult (OSD #3)?  For example, if two GAP
provisions require different logos in the same place, what happens?
Even if they're different places, what happens if one logo has to be so
big that it would cover the other?

More generally, what happens if you use so many GAP packages that the
screen becomes full of logos?  This seems a possible and quite
troublesome consequence of the provision.  It could ultimately make the
software unusable.  The original BSD advertising clause was already
considered troublesome, and it didn't require the program display anything.

>
> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
> major concerns.

See
http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#Compliance_with_OSD_.233


One major issue is still the question of it being a Generic Attribution
*Provision*.  As noted, the approval process
(http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval) requires
the submission of a *license*, which you have not done.  Do you intend
the board to consider the combination of GAP and all 50-something
licenses,  just the ones that explicitly allow modifications to the
license text (to avoid the question of what is aggregation and what is
modification), or really just MPL?

There's also the question of GAP's grammatical correctness, or lack
thereof (e.g. "[...]ensure that each time the resulting executable
program, a display of the same size as found in the [original
code][...]").  It should be reformulated, explicitly noting what must be
done and when using standard English.

Matthew Flaschen

[Ben Tilly]

On 1/22/07, Ross Mayfield <ross.mayfield@...> wrote:
> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
> two issues for the group:
>
> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>
> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?

3) What happens if the product has a UI that is too limited for your
requirements?  For example if someone wants to deliver content to
mobile telephones.

4) What happens if the product has an unexpected type of UI?  For
instance a command line client.  Or if someone wants to create a
specialized interface for blind people.

5) What happens if the UI has dramatically different rules?  For
instance there is a 3-dimensional interface where it is very hard to
interpret what it means to "display a logo" or to say what the size of
a 2-dimensional logo should be.

And so on and so forth.

Cheers,
Ben

> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.
>
> Ross Mayfield
>

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):

> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> input.

You're quite welcome.  

I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
"Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:

The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
this text:

  Socialtext Public License

  All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
  Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the
  Appendix page [link]).

Following that hyperlink takes one to
http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
out like this:

  Why the Appendix

  Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
  not found in the original MPL.

  An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
  standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.


Er, one problem:  As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc.  You submitted to OSI, as discussed here,
something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
(thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
Socialtext Open.

Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
opportunity.  Thank you.

--
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org

[Ross Mayfield]

To clarify,

First, we are addressing the general problem of attribution with GAP.
In my opinion, this is a choice to help solve a general problem for
and with the community where others have not and doing so generically
instead out of personal interest (and self-promotion as seems to be
the tone of part of this conversation).

As I've clarified before, Socialtext intends to both adopt the GAP and
become OSI Certified.  We did not submit SPL for approval, or claim
that Socialtext is OSI Certified today.

Ross

On 1/22/07, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:

> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>
> > Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> > input.
>
> You're quite welcome.
>
> I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
> "Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:
>
> The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
> this text:
>
>   Socialtext Public License
>
>   All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
>   Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the
>   Appendix page [link]).
>
> Following that hyperlink takes one to
> http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
> out like this:
>
>   Why the Appendix
>
>   Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
>   not found in the original MPL.
>
>   An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
>   standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.
>
>
> Er, one problem:  As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
> December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
> has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
> Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
> modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
> Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
> ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc.  You submitted to OSI, as discussed here,
> something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
> (thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
> Socialtext Open.
>
> Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
> opportunity.  Thank you.
>
> --
> "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
> make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
> and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
> the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
>

--
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@...
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. [phone]
f. [phone]
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):

> To clarify,

Ross, I appreciate your intent to clarify.  However, are you going to fix
what your Web page says?  To reiterate, what it says is simply
factually incorrect -- on a matter of central importance here, i.e., it
claims you've submitted to OSI licensing text that you clearly have not.

You could have said "Yes, we'll fix that."  You could have said "No,
we'll not be changing that page."  Or you could have just quietly fixed
it but not commented here.  I'm a bit mystified that you did none of
those three, as your response appears to use quite a few nice-sounding
phrases that circumnavigate what I said without addressing it.

--
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org

[Ross Mayfield]

I'll edit the page to further clarify (it is a wiki, so it shouldn't
be a problem).  Thanks.

Ross

On 1/22/07, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:

> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>
> > To clarify,
>
> Ross, I appreciate your intent to clarify.  However, are you going to fix
> what your Web page says?  To reiterate, what it says is simply
> factually incorrect -- on a matter of central importance here, i.e., it
> claims you've submitted to OSI licensing text that you clearly have not.
>
> You could have said "Yes, we'll fix that."  You could have said "No,
> we'll not be changing that page."  Or you could have just quietly fixed
> it but not commented here.  I'm a bit mystified that you did none of
> those three, as your response appears to use quite a few nice-sounding
> phrases that circumnavigate what I said without addressing it.
>
> --
> "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
> make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
> and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
> the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
>

--
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@...
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. [phone]
f. [phone]
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Peter Kloprogge]

Ross,

You mention that you intend to adopt the GAP and become OSI certified. It would be helpful for some of the discussions to be a bit more precise in the planning. When do you plan to submit the full license to the OSI board? You also mentioned that you think you could answer the general concerns about GAP. Why don't you actually start addressing those concerns in this discussion group? Are you planning to change the provisions or are you planning to disclose your intent with the hope that will be enough for the certification?

I understand that you enjoyed monitoring the discussions but I invite you to participate a bit more in the actual discussions.

Cheers,

Peter

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile  

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Mayfield <ross.mayfield@...>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:17:26
To:Rick Moen <rick@...>
Cc:license-discuss@...
Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

To clarify,

First, we are addressing the general problem of attribution with GAP.
In my opinion, this is a choice to help solve a general problem for
and with the community where others have not and doing so generically
instead out of personal interest (and self-promotion as seems to be
the tone of part of this conversation).

As I've clarified before, Socialtext intends to both adopt the GAP and
become OSI Certified.  We did not submit SPL for approval, or claim
that Socialtext is OSI Certified today.

Ross

On 1/22/07, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:

> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>
> > Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> > input.
>
> You're quite welcome.
>
> I've recently noticed a significant and relevant factual error on your
> "Socialtext Open Source Wiki" licensing pages:
>
> The wiki front page is http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ , which includes
> this text:
>
>   Socialtext Public License
>
>   All Socialtext Open Source projects are released under the Socialtext
>   Public License (MPL 1.1with an addendum, please see the Why the
>   Appendix page [link]).
>
> Following that hyperlink takes one to
> http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix, which starts
> out like this:
>
>   Why the Appendix
>
>   Socialtext's Open Source (SPL) license contains two additonal Appendix
>   not found in the original MPL.
>
>   An attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a
>   standard before OSI, see Attribution Memo.
>
>
> Er, one problem:  As I pointed out to you during our exchange on
> December 29 (and which observation you acknowledged true), Socialtext
> has NOT "submitted for consideration" to OSI Socialtext Public License's
> Exhibit B "attribution" and "network use" addenda (much less the entire
> modified-MPL licence, as would actually need to occur) -- no more than
> Mr. Asay has ever submitted Alfresco's, no more than Mr. Roberts has
> ever submitted SugarCRM's, etc.  You submitted to OSI, as discussed here,
> something entirely different, a licence fragment your firm doesn't
> (thus far) appear to actually use at all, anywhere -- let alone use for
> Socialtext Open.
>
> Please correct that fundamental misstatement, at your earliest
> opportunity.  Thank you.
>
> --
> "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and
> make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
> and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to
> the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
>

--
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@...
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. [phone]
f. [phone]
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Matthew Flaschen]

kloprogge@... wrote:
> Ross,
>
> You mention that you intend to adopt the GAP and become OSI certified. It would be helpful for some of the discussions to be a bit more
> precise in the planning. When do you plan to submit the full license
to the OSI board? You also mentioned that you think you could answer
> the general concerns about GAP. Why don't you actually start
addressing those concerns in this discussion group? Are you planning to
change
> the provisions or are you planning to disclose your intent with the
hope that will be enough for the certification?

The Board will not approve GAP simply because you promise to improve it.
 First, this promise can not be relied upon.  Second, even if GAP were
approved, then made more compliant, the new version would still need to
be submitted separately.  Thus, SocialText should make a new submission
(addressing the many problems noted) *now* if it wants to optimize its
changes of getting GAP approved.

Matthew Flaschen

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> The Board will not approve GAP simply because you promise to improve it.
> First, this promise can not be relied upon.  Second, even if GAP were
> approved, then made more compliant, the new version would still need to
> be submitted separately.  Thus, SocialText should make a new submission
> (addressing the many problems noted) *now* if it wants to optimize its
> changes of getting GAP approved.

Including, IMHO, submitting an actual license rather than just a
provision, since the meaning of the provision can change depending upon
the license.

  Brian

[Ross Mayfield]

Socialtext will submit the Socialtext Public License next week that
includes MPL and a modified GAP.  I look forward to the discussion.

Ross Mayfield

[Christian Maletz]

Matthew Flaschen schrieb:

> Ross Mayfield wrote:
>  
>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
>> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
>> two issues for the group:
>>
>> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>>    
>
> Yes, this is a serious problem.  More generally, what happens if the
> constraints of the original attribution (e.g. "same size" logo) can't be
> applied to a new UI.  What does "same size" even mean?  Does it refer to
> number of pixels, width at a certain resolution, the length of an SVG
> path, or what?  If it's physical size of the image, what if that exceeds
> the size of the whole UI? The AAL allowed much more discretion about the
> format of the attribution (and besides was approved before OSD #10).
>
>  
>> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>>    
>
> Yes, and what happens if two attribution licenses conflict or make
> extended derivative works difficult (OSD #3)?  For example, if two GAP
> provisions require different logos in the same place, what happens?
> Even if they're different places, what happens if one logo has to be so
> big that it would cover the other?
>
> More generally, what happens if you use so many GAP packages that the
> screen becomes full of logos?  This seems a possible and quite
> troublesome consequence of the provision.  It could ultimately make the
> software unusable.  The original BSD advertising clause was already
> considered troublesome, and it didn't require the program display anything.
>
>  
>> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
>> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
>> major concerns.
>>    
>
> See
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#Compliance_with_OSD_.233
>
>
> One major issue is still the question of it being a Generic Attribution
> *Provision*.  As noted, the approval process
> (http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval) requires
> the submission of a *license*, which you have not done.  Do you intend
> the board to consider the combination of GAP and all 50-something
> licenses,  just the ones that explicitly allow modifications to the
> license text (to avoid the question of what is aggregation and what is
> modification), or really just MPL?
>
> There's also the question of GAP's grammatical correctness, or lack
> thereof (e.g. "[...]ensure that each time the resulting executable
> program, a display of the same size as found in the [original
> code][...]").  It should be reformulated, explicitly noting what must be
> done and when using standard English.
>
> Matthew Flaschen
>
>  

       
               
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de

[Christian Maletz]

Ross Mayfield schrieb:

> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
> two issues for the group:
>
> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>
> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>
> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.
>
> Ross Mayfield
>

               
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Kenyon, Douglas W. (US)]

Pls delete me from the email list. Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: goobox@...
To: license-discuss@...
Sent: Wed Jan 24 14:54:31 2007
Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

Socialtext will submit the Socialtext Public License next week that
includes MPL and a modified GAP.  I look forward to the discussion.

Ross Mayfield

[Christian Maletz]

Andrew C. Oliver schrieb:

> No.  Take a look here:
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#License_is_incomplete_or_poorly_written 
>
>
> And here:
> http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against#Generic_acceptance_of_this_as_an_amendable_clause 
>
>
> I don't think anyone is against "attribution" so much as logo display
> requirements.
>
> -Andy
>
> Ross Mayfield wrote:
>> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your
>> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond
>> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises
>> two issues for the group:
>>
>> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?
>>
>> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?
>>
>> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these
>> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the
>> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.
>>
>> Ross Mayfield
>>
>>
>
>

       
               
___________________________________________________________
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de

[Edy-3]

Hi all,

HOW CAN I UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST?

Warm Regards,

 

Edy SP

____ The World is FLAT ____

-----Original Message-----

From: Christian Maletz [christian_maletz@...]

Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:26 AM

To: Ross Mayfield

Cc: license-discuss@...

Subject: Re: SocialText license discussion--call for closure of arguments

Ross Mayfield schrieb:

> Socialtext has been monitoring the conversation and we appreciate your

> input.  Based on our review of the discussion, it appears that beyond

> the general concerns about attribution, the proposed provision raises

> two issues for the group:

>

> 1)  What happens if the product does not have a UI?

>

> 2)  What happens if the location requirement is too specific?

>

> We think that we can come up with acceptable answers to both of these

> concerns, but we wanted to make sure that we have addressed all of the

> major concerns. Please advise me if you have other issues.

>

> Ross Mayfield

>

               

___________________________________________________________

Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de