Nicholas Weinstock has made an important point here: commercial entities
rely on the OSI list of approved licenses when making contracts. That's
good for the OSI.
They will only continue to rely on that list if they understand how the
list evolves.
Best,
Myrle
On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 8:09 PM Br
IMO for specialized licenses (I'm thinking of SIL again)
1. There has to be a better license first. Which might unfortunately mean
making it sometimes, and tolerating yet another license. Making it is for
someone admitted to the Bar to do.
2. The better license must be evangelized to the community
; > Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
> >
> > One of the parts of my job is reviewing commercial contracts. Some of
> those
> > contracts include references to Open Source. For example, they might say
> > something like "Supplier
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
>
> On
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
ck
Patent Counsel
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Chris DiBona
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 1:34 PM
To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
WARNING: This email originat
ss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
>
> To do some foreshadowing, the Working Group that was formed to make
> recommendations for improving the license review process will
soon be
> publishing its r
:08 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: License-discuss On
> > Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:47 AM
> > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapprovin
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:47 AM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
>
> To do some foreshadowing
ce Initiative
On 12/14/2022 11:30 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:48 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
For what my own limited opinion is worth,
>>From: License-discuss On
>>Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:48 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
>>For what my own limited opinion is worth, I certain
Hi Larry,
I am sorry to say so, but you really made this sound as if you were taking
it as a personal threat. Unnecessarily. Your own license was written by an
attorney, yourself, and is not in such danger as the "crayon" licenses,
which certainly should be deprecated, any my first candidate would
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.
14 matches
Mail list logo
