Without betraying my feelings on recently approved licenses. I've always thought the osi could move licenses into a deprecated or 'legacy' state , so that programs under those licenses until date x could be considered open source, but after that... I mean, there's already a break down of superseded, etc on the Osi site....
But maybe that's too nuanced a view of things :-) Goodness knows the number of projects adding on nonsense extra clauses continue to proliferate, mostly in the JavaScript community....but I digress. Chris On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 9:08 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > > Behalf Of Pamela Chestek > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:47 AM > > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses > > > > To do some foreshadowing, the Working Group that was formed to make > > recommendations for improving the license review process will soon be > > publishing its recommendation. This was originally within their remit, > but the > > group agreed that it was complex enough (and frankly I think we were all > a > > little tired at this point) that it should be a separate undertaking. > Personally, I > > think the OSI has to tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences and > > therefore needs to have a lot more information before deciding whether > and > > how to delist a license, such as: > > > > How many projects are using the licenses How significant they are How > many > > downstream users there are, and whether they have relied on the status as > > "open source" in some way, e.g., suddenly a component will have to be > > removed because it no longer has an "open source" license Whether anyone > > is doing marketing around the term "open source" for a license considered > > for delisting > > > > I'm sure with more thought there is other information that would be > > relevant. > > > > So McCoy, are you volunteering to head up a working group to work on this > > question? 😁 > > > Hey, not like I haven't volunteered for OSI in a related area before: > > https://opensource.org/proliferation-report#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20document%20is%20to%20report,lessen%20or%20remove%20issues%20caused%20by%20license%20proliferation.%22 > 😉 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
