Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

[Rick Moen]

[cross-post to license-review, snipped.]

Quoting Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) (cem.f.karan@mail.mil):

> What about GitHub?  

Using a proprietary hosting platform for outsourced tracking of open-source
licenses?  Could work, but that risks punishment by the Gods of Irony.


BTW, at $WORK, we found the open-source workalike platform GitLab to our
liking.  https://about.gitlab.com/

-- 
Cheers,"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose 
Rick Moen  smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it 
r...@linuxmafia.commakes a better soup."
McQ! (4x80)-- H.L. Mencken, _A Book of Burlesque_
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:02 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
> Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> 0.4.0
> 
> Caution-https://opensource.org/approval
> 
> Yep, you get to start this all over again. :)
> 
> A lot of folks do read both lists so it¹s probably not a huge deal. 

*WHEW!* :)

Thanks,
Cem Karan


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] The License Talking-About List

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

What about GitHub?  There have been suggestions on the Python-ideas list to do 
this for any new python ideas.  The idea is simple; each license becomes its 
own project.  Issues can then be tracked via the issue tracker, making it easy 
to segregate the issues into individual threads, and as issues are corrected 
or ended, the issue is closed and the git commit where the issue was dealt 
with can be noted in the issue itself.  Finally, as long as we're dealing with 
a pure-text version of the license, we get all the power of git; diffs, forks, 
merges, etc.,

Would this work for everyone?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:51 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; 'License submissions for OSI review' 
> 
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen 
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [License-discuss] The License Talking-About List
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> Cem Karan wrote:
>
> > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be 
> > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to
> license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this?
>
>
>
> Cem, please don't feel bad about your confusion. I've been around these 
> lists for years and I still get confused about their differences. You
> can't talk about license A without comparing it to license B, but those 
> discussions may involve different email lists, at OSI and at FSF and
> at CC. And for additional confusion, lots of FOSS organizations like OSI 
> move discussions from list to list merely to discuss everything a
> second time. It often permanently delays the decision (like the NASA and CC0 
> licenses have been delayed here). That was also often my
> email experience at Apache.
>
>
>
> Someone ought to invent a better solution than email lists to analyze 
> licenses and reach decisions.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) 
> [Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan@mail.mil]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:46 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: 
> U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> 0.4.0
>
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) 0.4.0

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

OK, so it's the way I thought.  First, propose a license on this list for 
discussion, but the actual review takes place on the license-review mailing 
list.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 5:04 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: U.S. 
> Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> 0.4.0
> 
> Yes, that is mistaken. This list plays no role in the OSI license approval 
> process, though it can be an appropriate place to discuss a license
> that has not been submitted for OSI approval.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:45:41PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL 
> (US) wrote:
> > I'm aware of the other list, but my understanding was that it had to be 
> > submitted to this list for discussion first, and then submitted to
> license-review once there was some consensus; am I wrong about this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cem Karan
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: License-discuss
> > > [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of
> > > Richard Fontana
> > > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:53 PM
> > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD Source]
> > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> > > 0.4.0
> > >
> > > All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please
> > > verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all 
> > > links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting
> the address to a Web browser.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if you're already aware but for several years this
> > > mailing list has not been used for discussing licenses submitted for
> > > OSI approval -- that is done on the license-review mailing list. The 
> > > license review process is described at Caution- Caution-
> https://opensource.org/approval.
> > >
> > > I haven't followed this thread too closely but it is clear that the
> > > ARL OSL is very different from NOSA 2.0. The only way to see whether it 
> > > would merit OSI approval (if that's what you are seeking)
> would be to submit it for review.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:14:59PM +, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM 
> > > ARL (US) wrote:
> > > > OK, so assuming that the NOSA 2.0 license is dead in the water,
> > > > what about the ARL OSL?  Is it also, dead, and if so, why?  Leave
> > > > aside
> > > the license proliferation aspect, and focus on what needs to be changed 
> > > with the ARL OSL to make it acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cem Karan
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: License-discuss
> > > > > [Caution-Caution-mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org]
> > > > > On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 10:21 AM
> > > > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: [Non-DoD
> > > > > Source]
> > > > > Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL)
> > > > > 0.4.0
> > > > >
> > > > > All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please
> > > > > verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity
> > > > > of all links contained within the message prior to copying and
> > > > > pasting
> > > the address to a Web browser.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 02:24:53AM +, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > > > > > My understanding then and now was that it had become clear to
> > > > > > them that Richard and Bruce was going to stall approval for a
> > > > > > long time/forever unless they took out the patent clause that
> > > > > > the open data folks wanted. So they withdrew because they were
> > > > > > never going to do that and the discussions were getting more and 
> > > > > > more heated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm assuming 'Richard' is me and 'Bruce' is Bruce Perens.
> > > > > Neither of us were on the OSI board at that time; we were just
> > > > > participants on a mailing list. Also, I don't recall Bruce
> > > > > Perens' involvement in the
> > > > > CC0 discussion at all, but my objective was to encourage the OSI
> > > > > take a consistent approach to the problem of nonstandard
> > > > > provisions dealing with patents, having remembered the
> > > > > discussion of the MXM license in ~2009, rather than an approach
> > > > > that would be
> > > explainable solely by attitudes towards the license steward.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If you don¹t believe that was a correct assessment on their
> > > > > > part then pray tell the status of NOSA v2 that was originally
> > > > > > submitted for approval in 2013.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a special,