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 ar
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 awa
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.
On 8/22/16, 4:45 PM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY
RDECOM ARL (US)" wrote:
>I'm aware of the other list, but my understand
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 [mailto:license-
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 https://opensource.org/approval.
I haven't followed this
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-
6 matches
Mail list logo