Widely. Autocorrect fail. But the danger, or damage, is in how the body of licenses affect the interpretation of the OSD.
__________________________ Van Lindberg van.lindb...@gmail.com m: 214.364.7985 On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 10:55 AM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com> wrote: > 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 27602pam...@chesteklegal.com > 919-800-8033www.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 > m: 214.364.7985 > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <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 >> 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> >> <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: >> >>> *>>From:* License-review <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> >>> *>>Cc:* License submissions for OSI review < >>> 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 >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-review mailing >> listLicense-review@lists.opensource.orghttp://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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing > listLicense-discuss@lists.opensource.orghttp://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
