On 12/13/2022 11:15 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
First, is there an approved license that chooses a*specific*,*named*
jurisdiction?
There are many licenses that either name a specific jurisdiction, will
have a specific, named jurisdiction once you know who the licensor is,
or allow the licensor t
Brad Kuhn wrote in his long and opinionated email:
I've been suggesting that the OSI should have a dis-approval or
delisting process, capable of being initiated by someone other than
the license steward, for a long time, but the OSI has been pretty
resistant to this idea.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:51 PM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Fontana answered this morning (here on license-discuss):
> Probably the most significant one historically is MPL 1.1 and its
> ancestors (California)
>
> Ugh, I'd forgotten that, but of course glad it's fixed! Was there anything
Pam,
Pamela Chestek wrote at 08:40 (PST) today:
> I'm taking the next step of moving the discussion to
> license-discuss. Please continue the discussion there.
That makes, sense, although as a point of order, I think you might have
typo'ed your email moving the thread. Your post moving it didn't
(moving this reply to license-discuss)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:41 AM Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
> Eric Schultz wrote:
> > We already have a number of approved licenses with a choice of law clauses.
>
> First, is there an approved license that chooses a *specific*, *named*
> jurisdiction? (There
