Wisely or widely?
Agree re "widely." Which also means that leaving them alone will also
have little impact.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pam...@chesteklegal.com
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
On 2/8/20 9:38 AM, VanL wrote:
That is a fair concern, but I think it could be mitigated. As a
threshold matter, the licenses I look at as being possibly worthy of
de-classification don't seem to be wisely used. For those few
affected, there could be a deprecation period, and some of them could
be revised.
Thanks,
Van
__________________________
Van Lindberg
van.lindb...@gmail.com <mailto:van.lindb...@gmail.com>
m: 214.364.7985
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com
<mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote:
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 <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com <http://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>
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
