>From License-discuss On
Behalf Of VanL:
> At least for now, and unless the OSI fumbles the ball so severely that it
>> cannot be recovered, I believe that OSI *is* the arbiter of what is Open
>> Source, just like the FSF is the arbiter of what is Free Software. That is
>> a reflection of my per
As opposed to the transparent and fair system where one individual held up the
vote on a license for three years AFTER consensus had been reached on the list
for approval and the former moderator had so recommended to the board?
I’m not advocating for a voting process but the current system is o
The voiced concern was that L-R participants don’t fully represent the views of
the wider community.
So if the board just accepts L-R consensus then the opinion of the board is
immaterial.
From: Smith, McCoy mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019, 2:41 PM
To: license-discuss@l
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> *>>From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL
> *>>Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 2:03 PM
> *>>To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] comprehensivene
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:03 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved
>>list
>>Yes, but it is not clear wh
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:58 PM Smith, McCoy wrote:
> >>Right now, if a license is certified once, even if not currently
> recommended, it is still Open Source. I think a deprecation policy would be
> helpful, but the OSI does not currently have one.
>
>
>
> OSI does have a deprecation (“retireme
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of VanL
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:53 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved
>>list
>>Right now, if a license is ce
Hi Nicholas,
Let me start by explaining my mental model: "Open Source" is basically like
the "UL" mark for electronics. It is a certification made by a third party
(here the OSI) that a certain product (the software) conforms to certain
standards in terms of what is included in it (only software u
Hi Van, in pondering your claim that only portions of Debian can be called
"Open Source" based on whether they are under an OSI Approved License. I think
the logic is backward. I agree that everything in the list of OSI Approved
Licenses is Open Source, but I don't think that means that a lice
There's an announcement in the works on that and other relevant topic from
the new Board Licensing chair, Pam Chestek. But yes, I've been holding the
fort in the mean time and appear to have overlooked the original
conversation, sorry about that.
There are no messages currently held in moderation
Bumping this thread because I never saw a reply.
Is there a moderator?
Brendan
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 18:54 Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> I would Ask the same question as well. I attempted to reply to a
> conversation earlier with no results.
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Patrick Schleizer
> w
Thanks Luis!
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 9:56 PM Luis Villa wrote:
> [should I bother continuing to move things off of license-review?]
>
If you or others don't, I will, so yes please. Not everyone has written off
L-R and it continues to be the wrong place for discussions that veer away
from the ap
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
>>On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
>>Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:48 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re:
>>[Lic
I was just going to move this to L-D, and I see that Luis beat me to the
punch.
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 10:59 AM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> I can't find the tweet but on Twitter recently Van Lindberg expressed
> the view that for distros like Debian or Fedora, the only portions of
> them that can
Just realized that my snip of the first quote from Richard in my previous
e-mail had removed the first sentence, where Richard very clearly said "I
guess I don't either," making it clear that the rest of the paragraph was
something of a philosophical reflection about the list. It's also obviously
n
When considering process and decision-making rules, please recognize that
the goal ought not be maximum precision of rules.
The precision of rules needs to be balanced against the reality that
understanding is incomplete -- both incomplete understanding of the direct
subject matter and, especially
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Luis and Richard. I think this discussion
is important, and I appreciate you taking the time to raise these.
First, I want to say that the topic of "what does an OSI list mean?" is
acutely important to many of the groups I work with. As Stephen mentioned,
I've sta
Potential for abuse in certain cases -- suppose a company writes a
controversial license and wants it to get OSI-approved, or wants to
see a third-party-submitted license rejected, and tries to manipulate
the process by encouraging employees to sign up for individual
memberships.
On Mon, May 20, 2
On 5/20/19 9:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in
> addition to a discussion period.
Interesting thought.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
+1 919-800-8033
pam...@chesteklegal.com
www.chest
One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in
addition to a discussion period.
On 5/20/19, 9:07 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Pamela Chestek"
wrote:
On 5/19/19 5:23 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Statistically, you may be right, but I'd still like to
On 5/19/19 5:23 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Statistically, you may be right, but I'd still like to challenge this.
> It is my belief that the list is merely functioning efficiently. I
> often read review discussions, and if I agree with the
> majority/consensus, I stay silent. It doesn't mean I'm no
21 matches
Mail list logo
