I'm almost certain a version before 3.0 (published in 2005) was on the OSI list before 2005, because I remember discussions about it on the License Proliferation Committee circa 2004.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> > Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 12:28 PM > To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Cc: VM (Vicky) Brasseur <osi-li...@vmbrasseur.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses? > > I don't understand how the licenses could no longer be 'valid', unless some > sort of law or other external factor has made them so. They may be > obsolete, superseded, not recommended for use by their author/steward, > etc., but their text is likely just as 'valid' today as when they were > published. > > McCoy's suggestion of placing them in the 'superseded' category seems > correct, assuming they had ever been approved by OSI. > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:58 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > > > > This would be a relatively elementary task if the mailing list were more > easily searchable.... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: VM (Vicky) Brasseur <osi-li...@vmbrasseur.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:45 AM > > > To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > > Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses? > > > > > > That's the process I'm familiar with, but I also haven't been paying > > > a lot of attention to it lately so my memory may be failing me there. > > > > > > Larry, could you please confirm whether those versions were > > > OSI-approved when they _were_ valid? > > > > > > My guess is that they were, but I don't want to assume and the SPDX > > > team can't find definitive proof either way. > > > > > > --V > > > > > > McCoy Smith wrote on 8/9/21 10:17: > > > > I think the earlier versions, however, should be put in the "superseded" > > > > category to capture any legacy uses? That's how others have been > handled. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:08 AM > > > >> To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > > >> Cc: lro...@rosenlaw.com > > > >> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses? > > > >> > > > >> McCoy is correct. Versions of AFL and OSL **prior to version > > > >> 3.0** are no longer valid. Please remove those earlier versions. > > > >> /Larry > > > >> > > > >> Lawrence Rosen > > > >> 707-478-8932 > > > >> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: License-discuss > > > >> <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> > > > >> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:56 PM > > > >> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses? > > > >> > > > >> Since that's Larry Rosen's license, he'd probably know best. I > > > >> talked to > > > > him > > > >> last week, should I ping him? I think he's on this list. > > > >> I think what probably happened is the older versions got > > > >> superseded in > > > > favor > > > >> of the newer versions, although typically that's shown in the > > > >> superseded > > > > list. > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: License-discuss > > > >>> <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> > > > >>> On Behalf Of VM (Vicky) Brasseur > > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:13 PM > > > >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > > >>> Subject: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses? > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi, folks! > > > >>> > > > >>> The SPDX folks are trying to sort out the status of the versions > > > >>> of the Academic Free License prior to v3.0. > > > >>> > > > >>> Basically, the Wayback Machine shows that the earlier versions > > > >>> are > > > >>> OSI- approved but they're not showing that way on the site anymore. > > > >>> Searching the list archives didn't turn up any information that > > > >>> would > > > >> clear > > > >>> things up. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does anyone have any information about these? > > > >>> > > > >>> See this GitHub issue for details: > > > >>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1327 > > > >>> > > > >>> --V > > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> 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 > > > > .ope > > > > nsourc > > > >> e.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 > > > > .ope > > > > nsource.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.ope > > nsource.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
