Hmm. I know a bit about the PEP process. It does seem like it would be a
valuable example to follow.
Thanks,
Van
__
Van Lindberg
van.lindb...@gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 7:54 PM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Sullivan w
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:42 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> perhaps those with OSI Board or other official status should clarify who
> they are
>
As Standards Chair I work with standards organizations on their policy for
working with or producing Open Source software. The issue is always patent
policy, s
Quoting Bruce Perens (br...@perens.com):
> You're asking the people who are charged with voting to make a decision to
> also state the *official *position of the organization. Pick one.
I actually meant to say that perhaps those with OSI Board or other
official status should clarify who they are,
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM John Sullivan wrote:
> I think some of this can be done without changing tools. Just as an idea
> from someone who can't volunteer the time to help with it, each license
> application could be assigned to a caretaker responsible for maintaining
> a dossier/brief fo
If the barrier to entry of having a lawyer today is a big enough concern,
OSI could provide one, sort of like a public defender.
I suspect there could be a credible case that drafting a license and
promoting it for others to use is unlicensed practice of law.
__
Luis Villa writes:
> I'm not sure I would go this far? But I would critically say that the
> current "process", such as it is, permits no way for an outsider to make a
> reasonable determination of the quality of the process, or to join
> constructively in the process.[1] Specific issues are not
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> If the
> main problem is 'Sometimes, net.random participants on OSI mailing lists
> are misunderstood to be somehow reflecting the position of OSI', then
> perhaps the appropriate remedy is a stronger social convention for
> official OSI represen
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:25 PM Ben Hilburn wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think if the decision process was more clear &
> transparent, it would be easier to tell whether or not "loud voices" actually
> do carry undue influence. As things stand now, I think you could construct
> pretty stron
Quoting Ben Hilburn (bhilb...@gmail.com):
> Luis offered some great suggestions for possible improvements. I've
> never used Discourse, so can't comment on it directly, but the general
> goals of improving transparency, clarity, and inclusion are acutely
> important and exactly the sort of things
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 1:37 PM Mike Milinkovich <
mike.milinkov...@opensource.org> wrote:
> And I think the votes are actually relatively well documented as you can
> see from the snippets below.
>
Thank you for shedding light on the situation. If I am not mistaken, we
only get a vote count on a
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
>>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor
>>I thus feel all such things should be rejected,
On 2019-03-15 3:16 p.m., Bruce Perens wrote:
McCoy, you aren't really talking about the decision process at all.
This list is advisory. The OSI board votes, and we receive no tally
naming directors and their votes yay or nay, nor their rationale for
voting as they did. This makes it difficult f
While we are discussing license approval, this morning's submission had no
legal review, the excuse being that it was a mashup of what was presumably
the work of unidentified lawyers.
There is great danger in using a license that has had no legal review,
since you have little idea of how it will w
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:26 PM Ben Hilburn wrote:
> it's important and good to say, "the process is open and anyone can
> contribute," but that doesn't mean that everyone actually feels welcome to
> do so, or that their opinions would be valued.
>
So, this is why I don't contribute technically
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM Smith, McCoy
> wrote:
>
>> Having a “more licenses should be approved,” “we need licenses to address
>> new business models” or “I will represent the silent majority” candidate
>> might serve to address the perception issue that not all issues or concerns
>> ar
Responding to McCoy's e-mail in-line:
> 1. Other than some form of moderation (which I’m not sure there is a need
> for), I’m not sure how you modulate perceived loud voices. In fact, I
> would argue that the louder you are, the more you run the risk of being
> perceived as unpersuasive (like t
McCoy, you aren't really talking about the decision process at all. This
list is advisory. The OSI board votes, and we receive no tally naming
directors and their votes yay or nay, nor their rationale for voting as
they did. This makes it difficult for us to determine how we should vote
for OSI dir
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Luis Villa
>>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 10:13 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re:
>>[License-review] Approval: Server Side Publi
I believe the team withdrew the money requirement, making the rest clearly
non-compulsory.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
Hi all -
I've mostly lurked on L-R and L-D, but I want to voice my support for the
general idea that we can make things better than they currently are. I
appreciate Josh's and Luis' e-mails on the topic, and their suggestions for
how to improve things.
As Josh said, the charge and responsibility
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Luis Villa wrote:
> I was not one of those people... because I had tuned out this thread some
> time ago, since it looked to have degenerated into a screaming match.
>
Maybe you aren't talking about me, but I'm really at a loss coming up with
when I've screamed a
[Forwarding mail sent privately; see bottom]
- Original message -
From: jonathon
To: chris.l...@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Fw: #905674: parallel: move to nonfree
Date: Friday, 15 March 2019 12:40 PM
On 3/8/19 5:45 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi license-discuss,
>
> Just i
[retitling and moving to license-discuss]
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/12/19 11:18 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:31 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>
> >> If nothing else, SSPL was a serious license proposal and deserved
> >> serious considerati
I have mentioned some time back that I was working on a new strong network
copyleft license. The result is the Cryptographic Autonomy License, which I
described at CopyleftConf. I wrote up an explainer laying out the legal
rationales behind the CAL:
https://www.processmechanics.com/2019/03/15/the
24 matches
Mail list logo
