[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New OPL Draft
- Subject: Re: New OPL Draft
- From: Branden Robinson <>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:03:58 -0500
- Cc: , , , , , Richard Stallman <>
In-Reply-To: <200002261819.LAA08702@aztec.santafe.edu>; from email@example.com on Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:19:54AM -0700
- Mail-Followup-To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,Laurie.Petrycki@newriders.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,Richard Stallman <email@example.com>
References: <38833524.8A0751C4@opencontent.org> <20000117235223.A150@localhost> <38908C74.5453FB05@opencontent.org> <200001292350.QAA04548@aztec.santafe.edu> <20000131231658.C163@localhost> <20000225021315.A2913@thyrsus.com> <200002261819.LAA08702@aztec.santafe.edu>
- Resent-Cc: recipient list not shown: ;
- Resent-Date: 27 Feb 2000 08:04:09 -0000
- Resent-Message-ID: <yXJ-e.A.z0.4pNu4@murphy>
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.4i
On Sat, Feb 26, 2000 at 11:19:54AM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote:
> It is possible to give more detailed recommendations such as "It is ok
> to use the FOO license as long as you don't use option C or D", but
> they will be unreliable--people will tend to misremember the details.
> It is an error-prone system.
A more error-prone system might serve to bolster OSI's utility in the
community. The more ambiguity there is, the more people will feel the need
to call up OSI and ask for advice on what they have to do to get an
officially recognized "Open Source" license.
I must disagree with ESR; I think a license that branches (a la a program)
has more potential to confuse than one that is invariant.
G. Branden Robinson | I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux | above, but it is too long to fit into
firstname.lastname@example.org | this .signature file.