It was fairly clear when the Vaccine License was submitted that there
was something afoot, the question was what. But we get many requests to
approve licenses that aren't well-written or that on their face don't
meet the OSD. We don't really have a choice but to treat them all with
equal dignity, no matter what we think may be going on.
I am wary of not accepting anonymous licenses. I consider anonymity to
be an important right. This case demonstrates why: the pro-vaccine
position might subject one to negative consequences.
I was quite peeved when I learned this was a fake license and I agree it
was thoughtless and inappropriate to waste everyone's time. That said,
it's one time in as long as I can remember, so at the moment I don't see
it as something worth reacting to.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pam...@chesteklegal.com
(919) 800-8033
On 8/25/2020 3:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* McCoy Smith:
Might it be time to require license submitters to actually identify
themselves, the organization they represent, and the name of the legal
person they worked with in creating and submitting the license?
Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
a requirement within its contribution process.
I know this was a minor blip in the process, but isn't the all-volunteer
Board busy enough that they shouldn't have to go through the motions of
convening a meeting and scheduling a vote on someone's joke proposal?
Instead, you will have to review the provided identifying information
and determine whether a proposal has genuine (business, community,
artistic) interest behind it or not. I doubt that it would save much
time.
It also does not stop people from submitting time wasters under a
real, government-issued identity.
[I'd also suggest that people caught doing these sorts of non-serious or
pseudonymous submissions not have the right to submit or comment on the
mailing lists in the future]
How are you going to enforce that?
There's going to be an exception process, just like in the Vaccine
License (but some egal certificate instead of a one issued by the
doctor).
_______________________________________________
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
