Thank you, @nick.
I know I didn’t make it easy for you to post this, and I really appreciate your candor and transparency—it’s reassuring to see we’re all working toward the same goal.
I owe you all an apology too for pushing the issue when I felt it was falling on deaf ears. It’s understandable that it took time to process everything, especially at the 11th hour.
You, @stefano, and I are personally invested in the OSI’s mission, and while I’m sure @Mer is as well after working on this for so long, I understand she’s also providing a service, so this is especially for her.
I’m genuinely intrigued by the co-design process, and with the additional context, the error makes more sense. I always assume good faith unless proven otherwise, and I had a feeling it might have been something like this.
There’s still work to be done. While I know I said I’d post less, I trust you’ll approach my recent replies with the same openness and willingness to reconsider, whether for RC1 or RC2. The MOF cited on many occasions calls for datasets under “any license or unlicensed,” and I hope we can bring you around to the position that this is a better compromise than an unenforceable and dangerous loophole that doesn’t protect the four freedoms.
That’s enough for one day. Thanks for your continued efforts.
Sam