On 2/28/2020 2:05 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via License-discuss wrote: > I don't know the full reasoning behind why they couldn't participate on the > list, but I do know that they were more open to talking with lawyers > directly, off list. Is that an option for you? Unfortunately, that's not a likely path to success. The licenses are discussed publicly, so the people who wrote the license are ideally the ones explaining it to the license-review list because they know the ins and outs. We've had proxies participate in the past and it doesn't go well. There also needs to be some willingness to modify the license based on feedback. The license may last to perpetuity, so it needs to be really well written. If it's presented to license-review as "take it or leave it," the outcome for a newly written license is likely going to be "leave it."
The anonymous lawyers should think of the license-review process as a really great tool for improving their work product. The list does a great job at stress testing a license (not to mention the equanimity of the license steward!) and will identify problems that the original authors didn't think about, so that the ultimately approved license is much higher quality than the originally submitted license. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Source Initiative _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
