Someone can start here
<https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working%20Groups%20%26%20Incubator%20Projects/License%20De-Listing%20Process%20Proposal%20Draft/>
if they're interested in pursuing this topic.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pam...@chesteklegal.com
(919) 800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
On 12/14/2022 1:34 PM, Chris DiBona wrote:
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already a break down of superseded, etc on the Osi site....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 <http://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
_______________________________________________
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
