As suggested, moving to license-discuss.
My concern with delisting is that someone will have relied on the
approval and it would be unfair, and a bad look for OSI, to suddenly
pull the rug out.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pam...@chesteklegal.com
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:
With the mild proviso that this discussion really should be on
license-discuss, I also think a deprecation committee is a great idea.
- Van
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote:
*>>From:* License-review
<license-review-boun...@lists.opensource.org
<mailto:license-review-boun...@lists.opensource.org>> *On Behalf
Of *Richard Fontana
*>>Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM
*>>To:* Eric Schultz <e...@wwahammy.com <mailto:e...@wwahammy.com>>
*>>Cc:* License submissions for OSI review
<license-rev...@lists.opensource.org
<mailto:license-rev...@lists.opensource.org>>
*>>Subject:* Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic
Autonomy License (Beta 4)
>>I agree with this. I would feel better if the OSI had some process
for reviewing and potentially delisting or at least deprecating
approved licenses based on problematic experiences with a
>>license that were not foreseeable at the time of approval.
>>Richard
I second the idea of a License Deprecation Committee, a la the
License Proliferation Committee of ’04. In fact, you could make
it a License Proliferation and Deprecation Committee to address
both issues (assuming there are people who believe license
proliferation is now a problem).
Given that there have been existing licenses on the list that have
been argued as precedent for recent submissions which were
rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought to be a serious look
at some of the historical approvals to test whether those
approvals would survive under current standards. I can think of
at least one license currently on the list which I’ve looked at
recently where I can’t justify it as consistent with the OSD (or
at least my understanding thereof) or the approval process as
currently run. That’s not a situation that I believe ought to
exist and can play into the perception that OSI approval is
inconsistent and/or arbitrary.
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
license-rev...@lists.opensource.org
<mailto:license-rev...@lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
license-rev...@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
