On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com> wrote: > > I understand the concept of decertifying or removing, but I am very > confused by the use of the term "deprecate." The current category of > licenses are: > > Popular and widely-used or with strong communities > International > Special purpose > Other/Miscellaneous > Redundant > Non-reusable > Superseded > Voluntarily retired > Uncategorized > > Are y'all suggesting yet another category, "deprecated"? And how does > that differ from some other categories, "non-reusable" in particular? > Why can't problematic licenses just be reclassified as "non-reusable"?
"Non-reusable" was defined more specifically in the mid-2000s License Proliferation Committee report (https://opensource.org/proliferation-report): "Licenses in this group are specific to their authors and cannot be reused by others. Many, but not all, of these licenses fall into the category of vanity licenses." An example given was the PHP license, recently discussed on license-review. Richard > > Pam > > Pamela S. Chestek > Chestek Legal > PO Box 2492 > Raleigh, NC 27602 > pam...@chesteklegal.com > 919-800-8033 > www.chesteklegal.com > > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
