[tei-council] Fwd: [tei-board] licensing issues

[Lou Burnard]

On 28/09/11 13:03, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 28 Sep 2011, at 12:51, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>
>> Compromise is good tho,  isnt it?
>
> I think you're confusing good compromise from bad compromise.
> If you need help deciding which is which, I can advise.
>

Ah thanks, that would be very helpful. What a good thing we have you 
around, eh.

>>
>> Actually, it;s better than that. As far as I can judge from some other
>> Board correspondence on the topic -- unattributably copied below -- the
>> Board is waiting for a decision from the Council.
>
> so which of you three were going to convey this to Council, I wonder? never mind.

I'm not sure who "you three" are, but I'm guessing it's Laurent's job 
formally to convey Board decisions to the Council
>
> I think there is confusion here. George wants permission to alter the current
> schemas he has in oxygen, as a one-off, to make himself legal. This has no
> affect on future schemas, which George reasonably expects us to issue with
s/affe/effec/ i assume

> a new licence (now that the problem has surfaced). I asked JU to take
> executive action, and grant him that one-off licence. I assume thats what the Board
> debated (possibly not in the right context).

Yes, indeed. I think that is the way it worked.

> My sense of the discussion here is that a reasonable number of us are in favour of
> a very simple, very liberal, BSD 2-clause licence for all TEI stuff which the Consortium
> produces.  Would anyone vote against that? can I put it up as a strawman proposal
> to see if anyone objects?

"all TEI stuff which the Consortium produces" is a rather vague concept. 
In particular it cannot apply prospectively surely? If (perhaps as a 
result of the ongoing futures debate) the Consortium gets into some 
other line of business -- say developing courseware -- it might want to 
licence such activities differently.

I think the proposal needs to be rather more precisely formulated before 
it can be voted on,