There was a 2012 discussion [1] about some licenses (e.g. the AFL-1.0 and AFL-1-1, etc.) which were approved by the OSI (e.g. [2,3]) but are not currently listed on the website [4,5]. As of at least 2005, Larry (the AFL author) was saying that the earlier licenses were superseded, but it didn't sound like he was suggesting them for retirement [6]. By the 2012 discussion, Larry was suggesting versions before 3.0 be retired [7]. And John took a dive into the Internet Archive to unearth the history for a number of licenses [8]. He didn't find the original AFL-1.0, but it's there on 2002-08-05 [9]. Karl (CCed) sounded like he was planning on updating the website to include the previously approved, now superseded/retired, currently unlisted licenses [10], but that doesn't seem to have happened yet. Are there still plans to restore these unlisted licenses (to [5])?
It would be nice to have the version-controlled, machine-readable source at [11] be canonical and be used as source for the website [4,5]. It sounds like Paul (CCed) was planning on something like that as of January this year [12]. But with the authoritative-ness of that repo still in flux, maybe it's better to update the Drupal database [13] directly? Also, the superseded/retired page is not very discoverable. I'd recommend linking to it from [4], and also from [14] (which already has “superseded licenses, or retired licenses” text which could be turned into a link). Cheers, Trevor [1]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017762.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 17:25:11 UTC 2012 [2]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2002-June/005443.html Subject: Academic Free License Date: Thu Jun 27 12:38:39 UTC 2002 [3]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2002-August/005736.html Subject: Academic Free License Date: Wed Aug 21 19:00:35 UTC 2002 [4]: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical [5]: https://opensource.org/licenses/do-not-use.html [6]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2005-August/010528.html Subject: de-recomendation of Larry Rosen's licenses/clarify web site Date: Tue Aug 16 01:34:12 UTC 2005 [7]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017771.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 20:19:24 UTC 2012 [8]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017766.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 19:19:14 UTC 2012 [9]: http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020805135807/http://www.opensource.org:80/licenses/academic.php [10]: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2012-April/017772.html Subject: SPDX License List v1.14 & OSI questions Date: Mon Apr 30 22:38:27 UTC 2012 [11]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses [12]: https://github.com/OpenSourceOrg/licenses/issues/47#issuecomment-270044446 Subject: Is this still not authoritative? Date: Jan 2, 2017, 6:46 PM PST [13]: https://opensource.org/faq#improve-osi-site [14]: https://opensource.org/licenses/ -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss