On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
> > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM
> > To: ch...@dibona.com; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org;
> > mc...@lexpan.law
> > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Retro
On 12/13/22 22:48, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Brad and the OSI have ONLY the authority to determine whether licenses
satisfy the Open Source Definition AND NOTHING MORE.
Yesbut. We are also the representatives of the idea of Open Source to
the community. As such, we have a responsibility to promote
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 11:01 AM
> To: ch...@dibona.com; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org;
> mc...@lexpan.law
> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
>
> One of the parts of my job is
Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock of Qualcomm wrote:
> Without commenting on WHETHER any licenses should be
> deprecated/disapproved/legacy, nor on WHICH licenses are appropriate
> candidates, I would like to suggest a consideration related to HOW to do
> so.
+1 (… and this may be the first time in
Without commenting on WHETHER any licenses should be
deprecated/disapproved/legacy, nor on WHICH licenses are appropriate
candidates, I would like to suggest a consideration related to HOW to do so.
One of the parts of my job is reviewing commercial contracts. Some of those
contracts include r
Pamela Chestek wrote:
> I'm asking that the conversation between Larry and Bradley been held
> privately. Both have had your say publicly and I'd prefer that the dispute
> not escalate here.
I had, in fact, started an a offlist discussion with Larry before Pam posted
this, and I can report that La
