Paul Beach wrote:

>> It's a trivial knockoff of the MPL. It isn't approved because nobody
>> wanted to spend the money to get it approved.
>>
>
> Or go through the pointless exercise in wasting valuable time.
>
> Paul
>

The funny thing about it is that today I read a news on slashdot about
companies using the therm "Open Source" and not using any OSI approved
licenses.
the Slashdot news are here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/06/21/1146259.shtml

and the the Michael Tiemann's blog post are here
http://www.opensource.org/node/163

I think it is a "bit" radical approach. To me "Open Source" is a therm
that could be used for a lot of different and not OSI approved licenses,
instead of a "Trade Mark" that could be only used with the OSI blessing,
from what I can see in Tiemann's point of view Firebird is not "Open
Source" software not because the FB used License does not follow OSI
requirements (since it is MPL) but because it is not OSI approved once
nobody spend the time/money to make it approved. That's a pity IMHO.
Looks like to me that OSI are not happy enough to try to explain the
difference between "Free Software" from "Open Source Software".

see you !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br