on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:24:27AM -0800, Adam C. Engst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 6:13 PM -0800 11/28/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >It's been part of my argument with Larry Rosen WRT the Jabber License. While
> >I agree with him in being able to move beyond the current state of art
> >in licensing, rather than being stuck with static terms dictated by
> >another party, I still have very strong misgivings over license
> >proliferation.
> >
> >Fortunately, the practice appears to be fading somewhat, and projects
> >which have adopted distinctive licenses are either fading or adopting
> >one of the emergent standards (GPL, BSD/MIT, or MozPL).
>
> From this, it would seem that you're saying my concern over making
> necessary modifications to a license is well-founded, and most open
> source projects are dealing with it by adopting one of the licenses
> that explicitly tries to be general. I guess my question remains,
> though. If you do need to make any changes at all, is it true that
> OSI needs to re-certify the result?
OSI would have to answer that, my understanding is that they do.
However, for modifications which are restricted to simple substitutions
in well-established licenses, this review is easier, if not expedited.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc. http://www.zelerate.org
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
PGP signature
