* Simon Phipps:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> * Andrew DeMarsh:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
>> >> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
>> >> a requirement within its contribution
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew DeMarsh:
>
> >>
> >> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> >> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> >> a requirement within its contribution process.
> >>
> >
> > I'm
* Andrew DeMarsh:
>>
>> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
>> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
>> a requirement within its contribution process.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that it would be required in the license text itself possibly
>
I will also add that the OSI learned this information fairly shortly
after the license was rejected. The OSI considered the submission a Code
of Conduct violation and addressed it directly with Bruce.
Pam
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 8/26/2020 11:29 PM, Pa
It was fairly clear when the Vaccine License was submitted that there
was something afoot, the question was what. But we get many requests to
approve licenses that aren't well-written or that on their face don't
meet the OSD. We don't really have a choice but to treat them all with
equal dignit
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 12:07 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> On 8/25/20 1:51 PM, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> > Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each
> > other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the
> > license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "
On 8/25/20 1:51 PM, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each
> other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the
> license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "x" is an arbitrary
> number, the idea is that by being used, th
McCoy Smith wrote on 25/8/20 15:41:
Interestingly enough, the original submission of the Vaccine License to the
OSI had what appears to be a phony SPDX designation, "SPDX: Vaccine-1.0 "
included in the submitted license text.
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of VM (Vicky) Brasseur
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 3:14 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
>
> Purely as an FYI,
Andrew DeMarsh wrote on 25/8/20 13:51:
There are plenty of legal professionals on this list that can most
likely write a far better rule/requirment, I personally would not throw
in the X projects requirement as I think that changes the rules
significantly from what they are today and would requ
There are plenty of legal professionals on this list that can most likely
write a far better rule/requirment, I personally would not throw in the X
projects requirement as I think that changes the rules significantly from
what they are today and would require a lot more input/consideration then
sim
>
> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> a requirement within its contribution process.
>
I'm not sure that it would be required in the license text itself possibly
only interacting with the ma
On 2020/08/25 17:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
> requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
> express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
> that the request be made w
* McCoy Smith:
> Might it be time to require license submitters to actually identify
> themselves, the organization they represent, and the name of the legal
> person they worked with in creating and submitting the license?
Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
DFSG-
Sorry yes, that's exactly what I mean. Sorry for any confusion.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:30 PM David Woolley
wrote:
> On 25/08/2020 18:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> > OSI be careful when trying to qualify what counts as a legal person
>
> I think you meant something like "legal expert", as "legal
To be clear if this was addressed squarely to me (sorry if not, contest is
harder to read via text), it is not that I don't care about the points you
have addressed; it is simply that I think a focus on the exploited weakness
in L-R is more productive, it is easier and less work to ensure that it i
ubmitter was not identified).
>
>
>
> So basically, putting a non-pseudonymous name to both the submitter and to
> the legal reviewer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew DeMarsh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 10:04 AM
> *To:* mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opens
On 25/08/2020 18:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
OSI be careful when trying to qualify what counts as a legal person
I think you meant something like "legal expert", as "legal person"
doesn't make sense in the English legal sense of the terms (an extension
of the the concept of a natural person (an
n.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
express purpose of a Licen
Even if you don’t care about Bruce Perens’s mockery of attempts by
practitioners to address the ethical shortcomings of traditional FLOSS, you
should care about his abuse of the time and effort of volunteers on this list
who took his “joke” seriously.
Ban him.
> On Aug 25, 2020, at 12:04 PM,
I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI
License
In view of the fact that the OSI is going to be forming a committee to
review the process:
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working+Groups+%26+Incubator+Projects/Licens
e+List+Working+Group/, here's one thing to consider:
In late 2019, a submission was made to approve the "Vaccine License":
http
22 matches
Mail list logo
