Engel Nyst <[email protected]> writes: >Thank you for taking it into account. >I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the >process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual >prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive >discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed. >http://wiki.opensource.org/license_delist_proposal > >I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it >in that case.
Not at all -- this is *exactly* what the wiki is for! As long as a page doesn't misrepresent itself as an official position of the OSI (and yours doesn't), it's fine & indeed welcome. -K >On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the >> license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. >> >> I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's >> justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does >> enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. >> >> I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political >> reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like >> approval of licenses. >> >>> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with >>> arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, >> >> I agree with that. >> > >I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process, >and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and >rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit. >_______________________________________________ >License-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
