Wisely or widely?
Agree re "widely." Which also means that leaving them alone will also
have little impact.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
[email protected]
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com
On 2/8/20 9:38 AM, VanL wrote:
That is a fair concern, but I think it could be mitigated. As a
threshold matter, the licenses I look at as being possibly worthy of
de-classification don't seem to be wisely used. For those few
affected, there could be a deprecation period, and some of them could
be revised.
Thanks,
Van
__________________________
Van Lindberg
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
m: 214.364.7985
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As suggested, moving to license-discuss.
My concern with delisting is that someone will have relied on the
approval and it would be unfair, and a bad look for OSI, to
suddenly pull the rug out.
Pam
Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com>
On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:
With the mild proviso that this discussion really should be on
license-discuss, I also think a deprecation committee is a great
idea.
- Van
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM McCoy Smith <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
*>>From:* License-review
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On
Behalf Of *Richard Fontana
*>>Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM
*>>To:* Eric Schultz <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*>>Cc:* License submissions for OSI review
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*>>Subject:* Re: [License-review] For approval: The
Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)
>>I agree with this. I would feel better if the OSI had some
process for reviewing and potentially delisting or at least
deprecating approved licenses based on problematic
experiences with a >>license that were not foreseeable at the
time of approval.
>>Richard
I second the idea of a License Deprecation Committee, a la
the License Proliferation Committee of ’04. In fact, you
could make it a License Proliferation and Deprecation
Committee to address both issues (assuming there are people
who believe license proliferation is now a problem).
Given that there have been existing licenses on the list that
have been argued as precedent for recent submissions which
were rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought to be a
serious look at some of the historical approvals to test
whether those approvals would survive under current
standards. I can think of at least one license currently on
the list which I’ve looked at recently where I can’t justify
it as consistent with the OSD (or at least my understanding
thereof) or the approval process as currently run. That’s
not a situation that I believe ought to exist and can play
into the perception that OSI approval is inconsistent and/or
arbitrary.
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
