Henrik,
Thank you for proposing a process for this! Lemme add my $0.02 on what
I would picture as a process.
> - There should be a formally elected person or committee with authority
> even just to (formally) start discussion about removing a specific
> license. This is to protect and ease tens
On 3/27/20 9:48 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> I would favour having a preliminary step of "deprecation" based on a
> Board-validated consensus that the license is no longer acceptable,
> followed by a delayed removal step after either a process like you
> describe or several years of deprecated status
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Henrik Ingo
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 2:20 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved licenses. Re:
REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses
This is clearly a proposal that's been a lo
On 3/26/2020 11:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/26/20 7:48 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>> If AAL is a candidate for removal, should *all* licenses which have that
>> sort of attribution requirement also be removed?
> If you know of other licenses we passed with badgeware requirements,
> please name
On 3/27/20 5:19 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
- A feedback period of 15 months is required before the actual removal
takes place.
That's way too long. If we can't find anybody using the license, AND the
original submitter agrees, we remove it immediately. The only reason to
delay removal is because
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:29 PM Henrik Ingo
wrote:
> Sure. In my list the start of the 15 months review is essentially a
> deprecation. I didn't want to use that word, because deprecation to me
> implies the decision is already final. But I'm not against it either.
>
I would favour having a prel
Sure. In my list the start of the 15 months review is essentially a
deprecation. I didn't want to use that word, because deprecation to me
implies the decision is already final. But I'm not against it either.
henrik
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:45 PM Nigel T wrote:
> Why not deprecate first? Wait
Why not deprecate first? Wait a year or two and then start the removal process.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2020, at 5:20 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>
>
> This is clearly a proposal that's been a long time coming. Whether it will be
> these licenses or some others, eventually OSI will be i
This is clearly a proposal that's been a long time coming. Whether it will
be these licenses or some others, eventually OSI will be in a situation
where we want to remove approved licenses.
Since this is a serious decision, I'd like to open a separate thread on
what might be an appropriate process
