On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 12:03 PM Luis Villa <l...@lu.is> wrote: > > Where there's been a substantial point made, I think the answer is probably > yes - a concise and board-endorsed summary of the CC0 withdrawal, for > example, would have been repeatedly useful to be able to point at over the > years.
There is a statement about the CC0 withdrawal in an OSI FAQ, which Nigel has argued (convincingly I think) is misleading and inaccurate. It just shows the difficulty in trying to summarize a license submission withdrawal, which was not an OSI decision and at least IMO can't fairly be described as a "decision" of license-review, or the then-semi-fictional License Committee. Chris Webber actually gave a pretty candid explanation for the withdrawal (http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-February/001565.html), but I am not sure what value a summary of that explanation would have for people trying to understand how OSI itself makes decisions. I suspect OSI would have approved CC0 if, er, someone hadn't inconveniently brought up the whole patent issue. Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
