Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

I'll follow Christopher's good example, and also try to cut to the chase. Quoting Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss (license-discuss@lists.opensource.org): > Except that we don’t need a representative number. If use cannot be > found, that would not imply there isn’t any. I certain

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Open Research Institute will pursue setting up a non-profit hosting service with the open source and ethical qualities we all desire. Since this is potentially a multi-million dollar crowdfunding, it will take a little time to get started. Thanks Bruce On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 12:14 Christopher Sea

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> Actually, what Thorsten Glaser said was: [snip] Not sure if quoting the entire e-mail is actually in disagreement with my characterization or just being pedantic, but I did not find it helpful. If anything, it’s a circular pitfall that I’m not going to repeat beyond to address the addition

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss (license-discuss@lists.opensource.org): > I didn’t say he did. He commented on a potential lack of public > hosting as grounds for “absolutely not even [coming] close to checking > whether a license is in use”. I commented on the general not

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 8, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > Desert island, chinese dissident… or even simple things > such as, a code hosting platform in Russian or Japanese > which is not discoverable for _you_. I think we’re talking past each other. I can trivially pull up foreign content on

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss (license-discuss@lists.opensource.org): > Code under an Open Source license that is not publicly available might > as well not be. Objection: Thorsten didn't speak of code that lacks public availability. > If it’s not publicly available a

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss dixit: >If it’s not publicly available and discoverable, I’m not sure I’d care >or consider them a qualifying use (for purposes of being considered a >license in use). Not really. Desert island, chinese dissident… or even simple things such as, a cod

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 7, 2019, at 6:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > The reason I postulate one can absolutely not even come > anywhere close to checking whether a licence is in use > is that people don’t necessarily use public hosting > services, nor even all that well-known ones… Code under an Open Sour

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Brendan Hickey dixit: >may be helpful. The problem is not the tooling to check for licences. The reason I postulate one can absolutely not even come anywhere close to checking whether a licence is in use is that people don’t necessarily use public hosting services, nor even all that well-known o

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 08:48 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:40:40PM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > Is there any way to find out if some of these licenses are even still in > > use (or ever were)? > > If they are detected by the license detection tool we're using > (current

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 06:40:40PM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > Is there any way to find out if some of these licenses are even still in > use (or ever were)? If they are detected by the license detection tool we're using (currently: FOSSology; more can be added) we can also query the Software H

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:59 AM Henrik Ingo wrote: > There are plenty of areas of the law where precedent is set aside: if not, > courts would never overrule their previous decisions. "Not in accordance > with precedent" is not the same as "arbitrary". > As a simple case, consider the doctrine

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Henrik Ingo (henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi): > I can of course only speak for myself, but I don't think the above is > the right conclusion at all. Recent mailing list discussion seems to > have made the point that adhering to precedent is hard, when in most > cases the process does not produc

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:58 PM Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting McCoy Smith (mccoy.sm...@intel.com): > > > The problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be > > used as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD > > compliant licenses must also be approved. > > Sever

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Pamela Chestek dixit: >Is there any way to find out if some of these licenses are even still >in use (or ever were)? No. Not even remotely. bye, //mirabilos -- 15:41⎜ Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-) ___ License-discuss mailing list Lic

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On 6/3/2019 11:31 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote: >>> If new findings occur with currently-approved licences that are not making >>> it completely unusable, they ought to be kept, perhaps in a “grandfathered, >>> problematic, actively derecommended for new works” category. > Per the observation above, m

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:55 PM Rick Moen wrote: But this seems surprising, because it's long been a settled > point that OSI's licence-reviewing program has no precedential > tradition, and would not aspire to one -- that this is not a 'stare > decisis' sort of place. > Indeed, it's more like an

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

se-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy < <mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com> mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandf

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to i

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to iden

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting McCoy Smith (mccoy.sm...@intel.com): > The problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be > used as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD > compliant licenses must also be approved. Several recent posters to this thread (including now you) have decr

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > I don’t think the current OSD bad. It’s common to have interpretation > aids without needing to completely change the rules. Arguably that is, should be, or could be what https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Smith, McCoy dixit: >problem with "grandfathering" such licenses is that they can be used >as precedent for new license submitters as to why their non-OSD >compliant licenses must also be approved. That’s why we could have a category for them, to make clear that they are *NOT* precedent. (Classi

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >>Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 8:01 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Russell McOrmond dixit: >On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote: >>license can be couched as an OSD 5/6 violation, because any >>conceivable problematic feature of a quasi-FLOSS license is going to >>be describable as a discrimination against *someone*. What has In Debian, we hav

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Richard Fontana wrote: > Larry Rosen, of all people, used the term "software freedom" in the subtitle of his influential early 2000s book on open source licensing, not long after the period of his own involvement in the OSI and prior to the founding of SFLC. Richard, thank you for the reminder.

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

ject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI >>I’ve worked with the Gov’t for over 20 years and seen my share of “Gov’t must >>do it this way” for [reasons] which are not actually regulatory but stem, >>rather, from widespread culture. However, I also

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X > they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that > provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as > long as X minimally meets the OSD. This is wh

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> >>Cc: Christopher Sean Morrison >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI >>>> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X >>>> they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

>> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X >> they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that >> provides X results in more open source code. This is a good thing as long >> as X minimally meets the OSD. > > This is where your logic fail

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:34 PM Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Pam, I said this to Bruce and the list: "Yes, OSI must do more to educate > the public, but your remarks make our community stupid." > I have attempted to steer this discussion back to arguing about licenses, and appreciate your participati

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Pam, I said this to Bruce and the list: "Yes, OSI must do more to educate the public, but your remarks make our community stupid." This is not about Bruce, whom I clearly stated I respect still. I have had a long and mostly positive relationship with him over the years. It is about his oft-r

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On 5/26/19 12:48 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > As was mentioned, the timing of this announcement correlates with > recent ad hominem attacks on Richard and Bruce, but I choose to > believe the causality is rather explained by the newly elected board > having started its term. I can confirm it was a co

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

> Once in a while someone here suggests the OSI adopt an official > de-listing procedure (beyond the existing limited possibility for > license steward deprecation). I'd like to propose that the OSI board > reconsider this idea, so that a *very* small number of licenses > approved earlier in the OS

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Thanks Pam Your personal response seems easier for me to reply to than the initial email. But as a general comment on the board decision I had been worried that as OSI becomes more active in education, advocacy and even lobbying for open source, there will be (and already are) Board members with v

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 8:32 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: [replying to Rick Moen] > But I hope to ease your concern that I am a rigid rule follower and can > be gamed that way. First, even if I could be gamed or I have nefarious > intent, the License Review Committee is four people and the Board is >

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rick Moen wrote: > And why obsess over (supposed) gaps of ideology when you actually want > the exact same outcomes as the other guys? Aren't outcomes what matter? > I agree outcomes are what matters. This isn't a variation of the Open Source vs Free Software d

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On 5/26/2019 3:04 AM, Rick Moen wrote: > Please pardon a wee bit more pontificating: I take Board good faith > Board as given, but IMO it's well to be wary of Internet gamesmanship, > that a cynic might imagine being behind _some_ claims of oppression from > some never-identified silent majority[

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Russell McOrmond (russellmcorm...@gmail.com): > The OSI as an organisation is free to determine its own objectives. > Whether they are in-line with what other people consider to be the > real-world objectives of software freedom can and does change over time. [scratches head] I'm honestl

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Pamela Chestek (pamela.ches...@opensource.org): > Larry, > > Thanks for the kudos, I appreciate it. (Kibbitzing, because not-Larry:) Much thanks to _you_ for caring and doing the heavy lifting. As mentioned, I join those in applauding the Board's current goals about consistenly civil an

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:21 AM Russell McOrmond wrote: > > I consider all of that incompatible with the real-world objectives of the > FLOSS movement, but recognise that at this specific time in the life of the > movement that I'm in the minority. > While there are a few people here who think t

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

With the possible exception of the Affero license, which we should discuss off-list, I don't believe you are in a minority at all. On Sat, May 25, 2019, 17:20 Russell McOrmond wrote: > > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rick Moen wrote: > >> IMO, this OSI mailing list is a natural place for pe

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rick Moen wrote: > IMO, this OSI mailing list is a natural place for people supportive of > OSI's real-world objectives. > The OSI as an organisation is free to determine its own objectives. Whether they are in-line with what other people consider to be the real-w

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Even better, thank you, Simon! Cheers, Martijn On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 22:26, Simon Phipps wrote: > (not citing the author as this is directed at all rather than a response > to him) > > I think Pam’s approach is very reasonable, why not let’s try it and see! >> > > In case this is unclear to

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

(not citing the author as this is directed at all rather than a response to him) I think Pam’s approach is very reasonable, why not let’s try it and see! > In case this is unclear to anyone, Pam is acting here as the Director responsible. The message she sent about OSI's process was authored co

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Quoting Russell McOrmond (russellmcorm...@gmail.com): [some well-thought-out observations, ending with:] > While I have been very active in the Free Software movement since the > early 1990's, I'm not an active participant in the OSI lists partly > because this list gives me the impression the sh

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

Hi all, I’m regular on other stds bodies and groups and the OSI lists are a little more on the robust side than others 🙂. An attempt to make both lists more welcome to new voices who may find these places currently intimidating can’t do any harm. I think Pam’s approach is very reasonable, why no

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:35 PM James wrote: > Because the moderation process is opaque, and the accused aren't > allowed to know about or confront their accusers, so this allows some > people to get "easily offended" and create unnecessary drama. > I take it this is a reference to the Fidonet

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:45 PM Pamela Chestek < pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote: > I've seen a few people who have said, essentially, "it's a little rough > and tumble, so what, deal with it." But we lose voices that way. Some > people with very smart views don't like confrontation, or inter

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Pamela Chestek Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:24 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI On 5/25/2019 11:14 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: As for list moderation, I believe that this

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:24 PM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 5/25/2019 11:14 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > As for list moderation, I believe that this and other open source lists go > way too far when they impose strict codes of conduct. I am an even greater > fan of free speech than I am of fre

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On 5/25/2019 11:14 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > As for list moderation, I believe that this and other open source > lists go way too far when they impose strict codes of conduct. I am an > even greater fan of free speech than I am of free software. If you > send too many emails, that is why God crea

Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:52 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > Changes to the Website > We have also made a minor change to the language describing the license > review process on https://opensource.org/approval. The page formerly said > “Approve, if (a) there is sufficient consensus emerging from c