> The license does not have terms that structurally put the licensor in a more favored position than any licensee.
Please use "must". Does is like "shall". This is one of a zillion references on why not to use "shall": https://www.isba.org/barnews/2009/11/25/must-vs-shall On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:12 PM Pamela Chestek < pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > The OSI has now posted the recommendations of the License Review Working > Group. The blog post is at > > https://blog.opensource.org/the-license-review-working-group-asks-for-community-input-on-its-recommendations/, > > with a wiki version available for comments. > > https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working%20Groups%20%26%20Incubator%20Projects/License%20Review/# > > Comments will be open on the wiki for four months to allow adequate > time. The OSI will also have a session in the Legal and Policy Issues > Dev Room at FOSDEM, https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/license_review/ > > Looking forward to all of your comments and insight. > > Pamela Chestek > Chair, License Committee > Open Source Initiative > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Bruce Perens K6BP
_______________________________________________ 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
