On 8/22/2019 2:22 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss > <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: >> Pam, >> >> I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically >> rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived. > I agree, even though attempting to gather that information would be > much more difficult. Agree that while this would be interesting and informative, I have no idea how to go about collecting it. I don't think we can even collect it for approved licenses. But if someone has an idea for mining information from email archives, board minutes, and anywhere else there might be data, let's figure it out. > Just focusing on licenses that have been approved > will give an incomplete and misleading picture, particularly because > the OSI seems to have been institutionally reluctant to admit to > having possibly made policy or administrative mistakes in distant-past > license approvals. I assume that's true, but we don't know until we've gathered the facts. The second step would be to decide what to do with what we've learned. There are many possible outcomes - ignore, ratify, distinguish, reject (and the discussion is sure to be lengthy and contentious). But it starts with simply collecting the information.
Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org