Subject: RE: Change ot topic, back to OVPL
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:20:37 -0700

 Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:20:37 -0700
 
Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> Do any license-discuss readers disagree with me?
>
> I disagree with requirements for certification that go beyond
conformance 
> to the letter and spirit of OSD.

Agreed.  Brian and Russ, I don't know how much of the (quite lengthy)
previous discussion of OVPL you followed, but there are those (such as
myself) who
question whether the mandatory, extensive license-back to the ID in OVPL
falls
within the letter and spirit of the OSD.  There are also those (such as
myself and Larry Rosen) who question whether said license-back can be
validly conveyed through a bare license, as opposed to a duly executed
contributors agreement.  Should a license whose key feature -- the
one feature which really distinguishes it from CDDL -- may be
unenforceable
get the OSI seal?

I hope that the eventual up/down decision on OVPL will be based on such
substantive issues.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center