On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Karl Fogel <kfo...@red-bean.com> wrote: > Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> writes: >>Thank you for taking it into account. >>I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the >>process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual >>prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive >>discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed. >>http://wiki.opensource.org/license_delist_proposal >> >>I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it >>in that case. > > Not at all -- this is *exactly* what the wiki is for! As long as a page > doesn't misrepresent itself as an official position of the OSI (and > yours doesn't), it's fine & indeed welcome.
What's the state of robots.txt and the wiki? If this page will be showing up in search results, I'd like it to slightly clearly identify itself as a brainstorm that is not endorsed/approved. I'd also like to reemphasize that I think this is a can of worms that I personally don't think we have the focus/organization to tackle effectively yet. I haven't seen anything in this thread that changes my mind on that yet. Luis >>On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: >>> >>> In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the >>> license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. >>> >>> I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's >>> justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does >>> enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. >>> >>> I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political >>> reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like >>> approval of licenses. >>> >>>> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with >>>> arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, >>> >>> I agree with that. >>> >> >>I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process, >>and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and >>rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit. >>_______________________________________________ >>License-discuss mailing list >>License-discuss@opensource.org >>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss