>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss >>Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:57 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison <brl...@mac.com> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI
>>I’ve worked with the Gov’t for over 20 years and seen my share of “Gov’t must >>do it this way” for [reasons] which are not actually regulatory but stem, >>rather, from widespread culture. However, I also believe OSI on the whole >>should be doing >>more to advocate and support Government participation in >>Open Source. Well, yes. If the government has particularly quirky rules that would impact here (like, say Bayh-Dole, or ITAR), and a license needs to account for those and can still conform to the OSD, then there shouldn’t be a problem with special-purpose approval. >>I don’t think anyone is suggesting Gov’t actors should be offered any sort of >>leeway with license review. Exactly, including answering legitimate questions about provisions in their licenses and why they are needed, and why already-approved licenses are problematic for the USG (or any other government). >> Gov’t does not respond well to ad hoc (at all) and that is / was the L-R >> process. From the recent mailing list activity, it may be more than just the government!
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
