approved licenses web page not being updated

Joseph M. Reagle Jr. reagle at
Wed Aug 1 21:56:52 UTC 2001

At 14:32 8/1/2001, David Johnson wrote:
>Back when I joined this list, it was my impression that it was only for
>unofficial public discussion of licenses, and *not* meant to be any part of
>an approval process.
"OSI has also established a mailing list to review licenses submitted to 
license-approval at"

>  My assumption at that time, which still holds, is that
>the OSI board has their own discussions during the approval phase.
"6. At the same time, we will monitor the license-discuss list and work
with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment.
8. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the
Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on 
license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues 
that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been 
approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below."

(Note that I'm excerpting from a resource which is not dated, but seems to 
be supercede [1] which my original request complied with.)

On the question of this effort being a voluntary one, there are useful work 
rules that make any type of work (voluntary or paid) easier for all 
involved. For instance, date all your pages (so people can figure how dated 
they are), sign all your pages (so people know who to contact with 
questions), accurately reflect their status (abusing peoples' expectations 
is the real problem [2], if there is no commitment to respond to a request, 
the page should say so).

     5. A commitment is an agreement by an entity that is accountable. As
        stated, an action item commitment is associated with a name,
        not "someone" (never gets done) or "one of them" (not very fair to
        the other people).
     6. I work to meet my commitments, if I can't I will say so as soon
        as I know. Not being able to do something is fine, just say so.
        Then one can re-prioritize, re-negotiate, or re-assign that
        commitment. Letting something go to completion date and fail is
        bad; it could've been discussed but now all dependencies are
        thrown off.

Joseph Reagle Jr.       
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle at
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair
W3C XML Encryption Chair

More information about the License-discuss mailing list