Re: Backlog assistance?
Steve Lhomme scripsit: > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. But if > someone creates a new license, it's because there is something missing or > something to remove from the existing ones. So I see that as an evolution. By no means. What is missing from the existing licenses is usually that they weren't written by whoever is rejecting them, developer or company lawyer. Not Invented Here, in short. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values| Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel |--Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSI mark. was[Re: Backlog assistance?]
On Friday 21 September 2001 03:54 pm, Steve Mallett wrote: > As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing > about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or > not? Yes or no? I second that opinion. As a developer, I take great pains in knowing how the software I create is licensed. But as a user all I care about is whether it's open source. Just a couple of weeks ago I burned a CD of miscellaneous packages, source and tidbits for a friend without a broadband connection. I would not have done that if I had to read 1000 licenses to make sure I wasn't violating any copyrights. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
On Saturday 22 September 2001 06:44 pm, Alex Stewart wrote: > Here are OSI certified templates. If you create a license by sticking > your name/information/etc into the appropriate fields of this license > without modifying anything else, it will be automatically certified > within (whatever the minimum reasonable turnaround is (preferably a week > or two) and stuck in the list. If you do your own thing, it could take > months (or longer) to get it certified. Instead of certifying licenses that are nothing more than "fill in the blanks", just consider them *already* certified. I use the BSD license, and filled in the blanks myself. I shouldn't have to seek additional certification for replacing [your name here] with "David Johnson". Certainly with more complicated templates, additional certification would be needed. But complicated templates will cause more problems than the solve. > Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's > just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have > avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none > of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of > features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD compliant). I did mention that there were some holes not covered in the domain. But what's out there will fit 95% of the need, in my opinion. There will always be some people with needs that aren't met, even with 1000 licenses. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSI mark. was[Re: Backlog assistance?]
> Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're > ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right > down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for > anything.. It's really useful. Maybe not in your case, but let me explain. As a user (as opposed to a developer in this example) I really and truley don't give a shit (inserted for dramatic effect only) what license a progam I use has other than to know it is compliant with the open-source definition. It's license is on the list? Great, I'm in. The day I read all those licenses to figure out every little detail of what they all mean is the day I shoot myself. Is it 'OSI certified'? That's all I need to know. That someone who knows this legal mumbo-jumbo and given it the nod is good enough for me. As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or not? Yes or no? Please reconsider your position. IANAL, but I play one on TV! -- Steve Mallett | Just Stable, Open-Source Apps http://OpenSourceDirectory.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project-Listing Maintenance In A Can: http://trovesendtwo.sf.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aug 15th/01, I have nothing to do with license approval.) "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good." -- Mohandas Gandhi -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
David Johnson wrote: > A far better solution would be to encourage "template" licenses, and work > towards converting existing licenses into templates. The BSD license is a > good example of a simple one. I tend to agree with this. The Apache license is another example (I note it primarily because there's already two different licenses (Apache and Vovida) listed in the OSI certified list which appear to be word-for-word identical except for the names. I think it might also be a really useful tactic to say something along the lines of: Here are OSI certified templates. If you create a license by sticking your name/information/etc into the appropriate fields of this license without modifying anything else, it will be automatically certified within (whatever the minimum reasonable turnaround is (preferably a week or two) and stuck in the list. If you do your own thing, it could take months (or longer) to get it certified. Seems to me that by itself might encourage people to look a lot harder at the templates before deciding to submit their own. Right now there's no indication that there's any real advantage (or "fast track") to not rolling one's own. > In my seldom humble opinion, the existing license set encompasses the > complete Open Source domain. There may be a few bare spots here and there, > but by and large if you need a certain set of permissions and restrictions, > an existing license will do. Excuse me, but I strongly disagree with this, speaking as somebody who's just gone through a fair amount of work (which I would happily have avoided if possible) to create my own license specifically because none of the other OSI licenses come very close to supporting the set of features I want (and yes, my license is fully OSD compliant). The existing license set encompasses the complete _conventional_ Open Source domain, but frankly the reason most licenses are derivative is because most people aren't being very creative. I worked very hard and looked everywhere I could to find a license that said what I wanted and it ain't there, so I finally gave up and spent the effort to make it. I might even submit it to the OSI if I can convince myself that anybody in this dessicated venue will even bother to consider looking at it.. Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for anything.. -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Greg London wrote: > IANAL, but simply from a development point of view, > OSI does not appear to be taking advantage of some > of open-source's best feature: patches and evolution There is a BIG difference between software and licenses. One of the most pertinent differences in this context is that software is interpreted by _machines_ and licenses are interpreted by _people_. Machines have no problem dealing with code that's been patched and modified to the point where it becomes spaghetti, but if that happens to a license you're in very ambiguous legal waters. > It would also create some unity among different > variations of licenses. Currently, if the GPL > were attacked legally, the people who use the > Artistic License would have little at stake. > but if a number of different groups use the same > base-license, and the base license is legally > attacked, there would advantage for a combined > legal defense from all users of the base-license. Sure, bonding and a common fight sounds like a good thing, until you realize that if the fight doesn't go the right way _everybody_ loses. From a copyright-holder's perspective, this is an extremely bad thing, and for open source in general it's potentially disastrous. Like genetics, some variation in the pool helps keep an individual weakness from destroying the entire group. (note, before somebody jumps on me for this, that there is a difference between "some variation" and YAPL issues. Everything can be taken to extremes.) -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
On Saturday 22 September 2001 02:17 pm, Greg London wrote: > The OSD has 11(?) requirements. > how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license > that defines these requirements. THen if you want to > create your own license, you inherit the minimal license > and add to it. It's not as easy as that. Consider the following license: "You are permitted to redistribute, modify and copy this software without restriction". Bingo! It meets the definition. But it would make a lousy "base class". Even the simplest clause added to it would greatly change its meaning. Another disadvantage to license inheritance is that it would encourage further license proliferation. Three licenses descended from a base license is STILL four licenses. A far better solution would be to encourage "template" licenses, and work towards converting existing licenses into templates. The BSD license is a good example of a simple one. In my seldom humble opinion, the existing license set encompasses the complete Open Source domain. There may be a few bare spots here and there, but by and large if you need a certain set of permissions and restrictions, an existing license will do. Looking back a couple of years on this list, it seems that 9 out of 10 licenses submitted did not meet the letter or spirit of Open Source. Of those that did, most consisted of either trivial changes or rewrites of existing licenses. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Alex Stewart wrote: > If the point is to provide a > few good, clear-cut licenses > for people to choose from, that's one > thing, and suggests the OSI should be very picky. > If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing > terms amongst the software community, > that's very different, and suggests that the OSI > should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) > anything that meats the open-source requirements. IANAL, but simply from a development point of view, OSI does not appear to be taking advantage of some of open-source's best feature: patches and evolution currently, all OSI certified licenses are "One-Off" applications, written from scratch, no reuse, no inheritance, no nothing. And their speed at which the approve licenses seems to be in line with that of an organization who is testing multiple, and completely independent, applications. And verification is basically what OSI does, except it's in a legal manner versus software manner. The OSD is the spec, everyone sends in their personal interpretation of that spec, and then OSI has to verify the license completely meets the spec. in order to make it easier to create your own license, perhaps someone could come up with a minimum "code base" and people could add to it. The OSD has 11(?) requirements. how hard would it be to come up with a minimal license that defines these requirements. THen if you want to create your own license, you inherit the minimal license and add to it. Copyright law only grants so many rights to the author, (something like copy, modify, distribute, display, public perform, but this is from vague memory) And there are only so many variations of things you can do with these rights and still be considered open source. And some are tied directly into the OSD itself copy and distribute are guaranteed. And either Modify or distribute with patches must be included as well. The biggest one seems to be that if yuo modify and redistribute, that new distribution must be under the same license as the original, to prevent code hijacking. could it be possible (and more importantly, of value) for OSI (or someone) to develop a "license developers kit" which includes a base-line license, and possibly, additional items from which people can select. throw in a good No Warranty clause. give a selection of what country's laws any disputes will be settled in. People could use that as a base license, select the required alternations, and then add an addendum area where they put their specific licensing requirements. (GPL could put it's political rant in it's ammendment section, for example) And the base-line license could say that whenever the ammendments conflict with the base license, the base license wins (or whatever the legal term is). Which should then prevent people from hijacking the base-license. And license incompatibilities with one another should be minimized. It would also create some unity among different variations of licenses. Currently, if the GPL were attacked legally, the people who use the Artistic License would have little at stake. but if a number of different groups use the same base-license, and the base license is legally attacked, there would advantage for a combined legal defense from all users of the base-license. and more importantly (benificially), OSI wouldn't have to manually approve every variation under the sun. This would allow OSI to gain the same benifits that open-source software has, and apply them to licensing development and approval. just a thought. IANAL Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Ok.. I find it interesting to note that despite significant back and forth and contributions from several different individuals, so far nobody in this thread has even attempted to address either of my actual questions. I think I'm beginning to see why there's a backlog. Steve Lhomme wrote: > | > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > | > opensource.org website. > | > | Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list > | archives and report back. Ok, I was under the impression that since people had noted there was a backlog, there was something somewhere that kept track of what was in it, or somebody was at least trying to have some understanding of the general status.. apparently this isn't the case, so I'll just go look at the archives and try to figure out which licenses are still pending and which aren't, and whether any progress is actually being made.. I guess that's that question sorta answered. > I will. But if you followed the thread I replied to a message that > complained about a license being backlogged. And even if I'm new to this > list it's not the first time I see people complaining about the stalled > state of the OSI. (and outside this list too) Umm, for the record, this thread was not a complaint, it was just an inquiry and offer of help. After reading the responses here so far I've managed to come up with a couple more questions.. I've looked around all the pages I can find on www.opensource.org, but I can find very little information about the organization itself (perhaps this is something I should be asking of [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I figured I'd try here first). How does the OSI actually work regarding license approval? Who can or can't approve a license, and do they rely on help from others to evaluate them or otherwise move the procedure along? How does this list actually fit in the whole process? (is there a process at all?) Basically, all I can find on the list is "submit it and we'll get back to you" (it isn't even terribly clear on who "we" is, though there's a side-note talking about when board meetings are, so does that imply that licenses are only approved by board vote?) Also, regarding the whole issue of whether more licenses are a good thing or a bad thing, it seems to me that this should be determined to some degree by what the OSI is actually here for. What is the organization's mission statement, anyway? If the point is to provide a few good, clear-cut licenses for people to choose from, that's one thing, and suggests the OSI should be very picky. If the goal is to encourage open-source licensing terms amongst the software community, that's very different, and suggests that the OSI should (try to) encourage (and thus certify) anything that meats the open-source requirements. If the goal is both, then it gets a bit more complicated, but if nothing else, I would suggest a better approach might be to have more than one tier: "OSI Certified" can include umpteen billion licenses, but possibly have a smaller subset of "OSI reccomended" licenses that include the old standards and anything particularly significant/distinct. On the web site, when somebody goes to look at licenses, they first get the list of "reccomended" licenses with a note that says "please use one of these if you can", and then a note at the bottom linking to the larger list of "OSI Certified" licenses, and only after you've gone through those do you get to the instructions for how to submit a new one. But anyway, that's just some thoughts off the top of my head (my apologies if I'm reiterating things others have already said, I'm still slowly working my way through the archives). -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| For everyone: | | Maybe the OSI could publish a few figures, like: That's exactly what I was looking for (from them) by saying : "make things clear with the community" -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
Just a different $.02, but relevant I think. For Steve, I think that OSI recently started some other initiatives to try to speed up the license review process (isn't there at least one voluntary advisory committee reviewing one license?). For everyone: Maybe the OSI could publish a few figures, like: * How many licenses have been submitted for review * How many licenses have been approved or rejected * The average time from submission to approval or rejection (no matter how disheartening this may be, it at least lets "customers" with new licenses have an idea of what they're in for) I also (think I) know that the OSI has at times devoted their attention to licenses that they considered more important than others for one reason or another. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- if an IBM or HP or whoever seeks approval for a license that might bring them "into the fold", I think most of us would like to see prompt attention to such licenses or issues. I was going to also suggest that OSI establish some sort of target throughput figures, for their own use, and for the user community. Even though the time from submission to approval or rejection may be rather long, I suspect the licenses are under active consideration for a much shorter period of time. In addition, I suspect that more than one license is under semi-active consideration at any one time (meaning someone reads it, has some questions, asks some questions, but goes on to the next license while waiting for a response). Can the OSI come up with some benchmark figures that they think are reasonable to achieve, maybe something like: Average time from start of active consideration to approval or rejection: 4 months Average license approvals: 1 / month (or average licenses that start active consideration) Maybe the figures should be divided to consider "major" licenses (those significantly different, or with clauses that appear to require considerable analyisis, compared to existing licenses) and "minor" licenses (licenses almost the same as other licenses, with minor changes but more than just "name and address" stuff). Maybe establish two different timelines, and maybe a reasonable target is approval (or rejection) of one "major" and one "minor" license per month. If the user community knows that, for example, 60 licenses have been submitted, and the OSI target is approval or rejection of one or two per month, they can see what they're in for, and may be more likely to choose to use an existing license, (possibly on an interim basis). The target for approval is just that -- a target, not a quota. If really measured it should not be judged on a monthly basis, but rather on something like a sliding 12 month window basis. In saying all this, I'm not sure how to treat or count a rejection, because rejections may not really be final -- they may just prompt the potential licensor to submit another round of modifications or arguments. Randy Kramer PS: Just for kicks, I looked at some pages on www.opensource.org and counted 26 approved licenses, and see references to its (OSI's) formation about one week after February 3, 1988. It's now about 43 months since then, so maybe one license (approved) per month is not far from reality . (I recognize that this is a pretty crude measurement for a lot of reasons -- I don't know whether OSI started attempting to approve licenses near that time or not, I don't know how many they rejected, etc.) And, as I'm sure Rick would ask, do we need more than 26 OSI licenses? Why? Aren't we just creating the Tower of Babel for Open Source Licenses? Which licenses are compatible with which other licenses? PS: For Steve -- there is a web site which attempts to compare some free licenses to help a software developer choose a license -- http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html. It was put together by Zooko O'Whielacronx. Steve Lhomme wrote: > > | begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > | > | > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. > | > | Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. > > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > opensource.org website. > > | Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new > | licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. > > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses (you > meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones because they > don't add anything, anyway. > > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. So > what would the OSI be worth if they stop doing what they're here for ?! > > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work > on it an
Re: Backlog assistance?
| > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the | > opensource.org website. | | Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list | archives and report back. I will. But if you followed the thread I replied to a message that complained about a license being backlogged. And even if I'm new to this list it's not the first time I see people complaining about the stalled state of the OSI. (and outside this list too) | > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses | > (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones | > because they don't add anything, anyway. | | Ah, so you're now switching tactics, dropping the vague appeals to | theory, and falling back on procedure? Tactics ? Is there a contradiction between theory and practical things ? Is it because my previous message was theoretical that I should only speak of theoretical things ? This paragraph was related to what I said after it, not my previous messages. | > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm | > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to | > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, | > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. | | Ah, so you're speaking for an invisible "silent majority", so to speak. Before I arrived to this list, I already knew the OSI was very slow (nearly dead). So I was part of that silent majority that never post a message here. So even if I don't consider myself as a spokes-person for anybody, I could reply "yes". But I don't know if that's a majority, so that's "no". | > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work | > on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the | > community) | | You know, Steve, I kind of liked your earlier assertion of evolutionary | advantages to new licences, and am still looking forward to your | adducing examples of them. Too bad that requires _work_ on your part, | when gratuitously complaining about other people is undoubtedly a great | deal easier. If I had the time to do read all the pending licenses to find out what are the evolutionary ones, I'll probably join the OSI and also (at the same time) find out which one meet the OSI rules and would add them to the list of the "OSI Certified" licenses. Unfortunately I don't have that time, nor whishes to join the OSI (for the moment). I'll let them (OSI) do their job, and I'll do mine (developper and contributor to a license not even pending). -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the > opensource.org website. Therefore: Consider yourself invited to read their postings to the list archives and report back. > Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses > (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones > because they don't add anything, anyway. Ah, so you're now switching tactics, dropping the vague appeals to theory, and falling back on procedure? > Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm > helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to > wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, > or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. Ah, so you're speaking for an invisible "silent majority", so to speak. > I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work > on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the > community) You know, Steve, I kind of liked your earlier assertion of evolutionary advantages to new licences, and am still looking forward to your adducing examples of them. Too bad that requires _work_ on your part, when gratuitously complaining about other people is undoubtedly a great deal easier. -- Cheers, Evolution: Life's a niche, and then you die. Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| begin Steve Lhomme quotation: | | > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. | | Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. Completely. Since they are pending, they are not mentioned on the opensource.org website. | Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new | licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. Well, I thought the OSI was there to approve or not the new licenses (you meet the rules, you don't meet the rules), not stop new ones because they don't add anything, anyway. Also if anybody create a new license (that's nearly my case, because I'm helping building a new open-source license), they'll be either reluctant to wait for an hypothetical OSI approval and will be waiting ages for nothing, or they just won't ask the OSI and start spreading it in other places. So what would the OSI be worth if they stop doing what they're here for ?! I know it takes time, and maybe money to do all that. But if they can't work on it anymore, why don't they say it ? (make things clear with the community) -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. Ah, so yours was purely a _theoretical_ concern. Well, please do talk to us about the evolutionary merit of some new licence when you can actually point to one displaying such a trait. -- Cheers, "That article and its poster have been cancelled." Rick Moen -- David B. O'Donnel, sysadmin for America Online [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
| begin Steve Lhomme quotation: | | > And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not | > letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of | > years of experience of the problems that already happened). | | I'm curious as to what specific features you see as improvements, in any | of the submitted-but-not-yet-approved licences. Frankly, I've not | noticed anything innovative and useful. First, I don't know what are the pending-to-be-certified licenses. But if someone creates a new license, it's because there is something missing or something to remove from the existing ones. So I see that as an evolution. An evolution to give more choice, and maybe add a new idea noone ever thought about. Isn't that what open-source is about ? Base your work on the existing one to go "further" ? The OSI approval has become a de-facto standard for open-source licenses. But if it's closed to anything new (not approving anything anymore), that's not going to be good for the whole community. That's what I find is a real pity. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
begin Steve Lhomme quotation: > And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not > letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of > years of experience of the problems that already happened). I'm curious as to what specific features you see as improvements, in any of the submitted-but-not-yet-approved licences. Frankly, I've not noticed anything innovative and useful. -- Cheers, "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?" Rick Moen -- Steven Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Backlog assistance?
I think it's a real pity, because it slows down a lot of effort in the Open-Source direction/community. The OSI approval has become a guarantee for developpers and companies who want to use open-source softwares. And so they're currently stuck with the ones already approved. Not letting a better chance to newer (and so probably better, because of years of experience of the problems that already happened). Also in the advocacy section of the website, they say that there are proof that it's possible to make business with open-source licences. The 2 examples are Caldera and RedHat... in 1998 ! When you see the situation of Caldera moving as fast as possible from oepn-source to make more valuable business and RedHat, as the other distros, is still not profitable. So I think that keeping the Caldera example on the website is at least counter-productive (for anyone following the news) ! - Original Message - From: "Alex Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 1:26 AM Subject: Backlog assistance? | Greetings all.. | | I was recently browsing through the list archives here, and noted that a | few weeks back Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stated something to | the effect of: | | > Why isn't it approved? Because we got hideously backlogged. | | And so, I have a couple of questions.. | | First, are things still backlogged, and if so, how much? | | Secondly, assuming that there is still a backlog of some degree, is | there anything that I, as a newbie to this group but a reasonably | legalese-savvy and intelligent open-source advocate might be able to do | to help out in this regard? I can't necessarily promise huge amounts of | spare time for such things, but if there are things where having another | set of eyes in the loop here and there or having somebody to help | organize some part of things would help with, or whatever, I'm willing | to do what I can to help. | | (I started looking at this list because I'm currently in the process of | finishing up a license document which I was looking at submitting, but I | figure if folks are currently backlogged I should do what I can to | reduce that situation before loading you all up with more stuff :) ) | | -alex -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
