On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM, dmg <d...@uvic.ca> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every variation, >>> so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. >> >> From "not every", it does not follow logically "not any". I don't doubt >> the premise is true, but the second does not follow from it alone. >> But perhaps there is no need to go all the way, for minor differences >> and existing use...: it is not approved, but sometimes it is discussed >> and no reasons are raised, which would probably make it rejected. >> (apart from reasons unrelated to its FOSS appropriate status) >> With all other disclaimers needed... but if it's true, perhaps there is a >> way to say it. > > You can't be expected to review _every_ variation, but you can review > the ones that occur most frequently that are almost a match for the > license.
If that could be data driven, and not anecdote-driven, I'd be open to it. What I don't want is having to review and post on the website every trivial variation anyone bothers to email to license-discuss. Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
