>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss On
Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:33 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>>VanL :
&g
Nigel T :
> Probably because there is the concern that a few folks would seek to
> decertify licenses like NOSA and millions of lines of software that other
> folks depend on.
That is a fair concern.
/me reads NOSA license
I would deprecate this because of the uncertainty over the interpretation
There has been discussion (though in this case debian rather than OSI)
approval on the Vim License before; see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html .
As a summary, the vim license still asks for those who make changes provide
them to the maintainer.
Members of this mailing li
Probably because there is the concern that a few folks would seek to
decertify licenses like NOSA and millions of lines of software that other
folks depend on.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:59 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps
> wrote:
>
> > What I'd propose h
VanL :
> I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
> Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
> that should probably be decertified.
>
> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
> licenses - such as tho
Kevin P. Fleming :
> Hear hear! I recently had to grant an internal exception to allow
> contributions to Vim because "The Vim License" is not an OSI-approved
> license. I have no doubt that it would be approved were it to be
> submitted, but it has not been as far as I can tell and is unlikely to
Hear hear! I recently had to grant an internal exception to allow
contributions to Vim because "The Vim License" is not an OSI-approved
license. I have no doubt that it would be approved were it to be
submitted, but it has not been as far as I can tell and is unlikely to
ever be.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:18 PM VanL wrote:
> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
> licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - even without
> affirmative submission. Most of them will not be controversial. We want to
> reach a world in whi
I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
that should probably be decertified.
On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
licenses - such as those identified via t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps
wrote:
> What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:15 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> John Cowan :
> > 3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it
> > will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view,
> open-source
> > license certification is not a situation in which it is always be
John Cowan :
> 3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it
> will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view, open-source
> license certification is not a situation in which it is always better to
> have a settled result than a just result.
That is elegan
Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock :
> I agree, that seems a step too far. The term “Open Source” was around and
> used to describe some licenses before OSI and the OSD existed.
No, it wasn't. Believe me, I did a *very* through audit on existing
usage at the time I proposed the term for general us
McCoy Smith :
> Is the proposal to "revoke" or simply to "deprecate"?
I would accept "deprecate", with an understanding that deprecation
should be considered fair warning that a license may be decertified
based on further examination and experience.
In fact, I think "deprecation" as a first step
Simon Phipps :
> What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the same discussion-followed-by-committee-rev
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:19 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it
> wants to add licenses to the list of OSI-Approved Licenses.
>
Well, within the OSD, which is effectively our constituti
>>From: Simon Phipps
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 10:09 AM
>>To: McCoy Smith ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>>Note that we already accept requests from the license s
, February 24, 2020 9:03 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:08 AM Eric S. Raymond
mailto:e...@thyrsus.com>> wrote:
The analogy [with UL] is exact.
Not quite. If we found out that
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:59 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
> >>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: [Li
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss On
Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>>Pamela Chest
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:08 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The analogy [with UL] is exact.
Not quite. If we found out that the license did not meet the OSD's
requirements, it would indeed be our duty to decertify it. However, goals
like "minimize license proliferation" are less clear-cut. Sayi
Pamela Chestek's has aasserted that it would be "unfair" to revoke
certification of licenses we have previously accepted.
There is a kind of "fairness" I think we do owe - that is, process
fairness. Transparency, accountabilty, and judging licenses without
fear or favor.
But I deny that "fairnes
22 matches
Mail list logo
