[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

SteveC steve at asklater.com
Thu Dec 3 22:37:06 UTC 2009

On Dec 3, 2009, at 10:29 AM, 80n wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Matthias Urlichs <matthias at urlichs.de> wrote:
> On Do, 2009-12-03 at 15:09 +0000, 80n wrote:
> > You've tried to show that you've addressed the question of complexity
> > in your proposal document by referencing a human readable version of
> > the license.
> That's a totally sensible thing to do when the original document cannot
> be simplified.
> Please tell us exactly what you think can be simplified instead of
> simply calling for unspecific simplification, particularly this late.
> I'm not calling for simplification.  I'm calling for the LWG to properly acknowledge the risks associated with a compex legal agreement.

Your demands are so watered down now it's just a vague call for 'acknowledgment' of 'risks'.

Can you please drop it and let the LWG do it's job now please? I think Matt made it clear the LWG went through everything you raised.

Yours &c.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list