It has come to my attention off-list that I may need to clarify my comment on the proposed RSPL.
I made 3 observations; namely, that since [1] section 2a of the proposed license is identical to section 2a of the GNU LGPL; [2] the proposed license has a similar purpose as the GNU LGPL (according the license poster); and [3] the GNU LGPL is an approved OSI License; that it is my judgment that there is no OSD-related problem with sections 2a or 2d of the RSPL, which I, like Mark, had initially questioned. I am still unsure why the GNU LGPL does not serve the poster's purpose...particularly since the original section 2d of the RSPL has been removed from the proposed license. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
