On 4/6/21 6:36 AM, McCoy Smith wrote: > My point is that it was submitted to OSI (starting here: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2 > 015-August/002438.html ending here: > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2 > 015-November/002617.html ) under the Free Public License 1.0.0 name, and > erasing that name is going to make it difficult for people trying to > understand the approval history, as there will be none for the "0BSD > license" if you don't at least have a pointer to the approval name.
Yeah, I'm OK with listing both names, but the idea that we'd remove the original approval name, that some people are using, is a non-starter. The current listing is 100% appropriate given the history of the license, Rob's hyperbole and ill-considered metaphors notwithstanding. -- Josh Berkus _______________________________________________ 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
