On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:59 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote:
> >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond > >>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM > >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > >>Subject: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives > > >>Pamela Chestek's has asserted that it would be "unfair" to revoke > certification of licenses we have previously accepted. > > Is the proposal to "revoke" or simply to "deprecate"? The latter seems to > be a better mechanism to discourage future uses, and nudge current or past > users to move to a non-deprecated license, without the immediate harsh > consequences against current users. And, FWIW, it seems that a substantial > number of the problematic licenses have a very small user base, or indeed, > are only used by the original submitter. Note that we already accept requests from the license steward to deprecate a license, either because they consider it no longer appropriate (as I myself did for the SISSL a decade or so ago) or because it has been superceded. This conveys a clear message that the license should not be used for new uses, without harming legacy applications (which are indeed often minimal). What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and then follow the same discussion-followed-by-committee-review process as approval. The decision to involuntarily deprecate a license would then finally be reviewed by the Board. Simon (in-role but not representing a consensus position)
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
