pruning "dead" licenses

[Roddixon]

I think it is nearly impossible to prune licenses without risking 
allegations that the certification trademark is being misused.  

 I agree, however, that the dead licenses are serious concern, and that  
the problem of listing too many dead licenses is likely to get worse over 
time. One possible solution is to adapt a U.S. trademark practice used by 
the PTO.  OSI could  post on the OSI website that licensing use of the 
certification mark is initially for a limited period (3 years). Thereafter, 
licensees could be required to send an e-mail to OSI indicating that the 
mark is still in use and specify in what manner. Upon doing so, the 
licensee is automatically granted a 3 year extension; the submitters who 
fail to send an e-mail after the initial period expires  are pruned from 
the list until they reapply for approval. I have no idea what period is 
best so the 3 year periods I use is just a suggestion.

- Rod Dixon

------------
Rod Dixon
opensource.cyberspaces.org

...... Original Message .......
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:52:10 -0500 Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
>I got to thinking the other day that we really ought to be pruning
>"dead" licenses from the list.  The principle seems correct, since the
>underlying intellectual property right expires as well: copyright
>after a gazillion years[1], patents after twenty years, and trademarks
>after you stop defending them.
>
>A "dead" license is one which is no longer used for any projects.
>
>That's obviously a tough criterion to meet, since we would have to
>prove a negative.  A related positive criteria is to ask the person
>who (or entity which) submitted the license if they are still using
>it, and if they know of anyone else using it.
>
>Another definition of a "dead" license is one which is not being used
>by any projects which advertise OSI Certification.  If none of the
>licensed projects need OSI Certification, (and we can infer this by
>their failure to advertise OSI Certification), then why should we keep
>the license's approval?
>
>Comments?
>
>[1] In recent practise, copyrights don't expire even though the law
>says that they do.  The principle of copyright expiration still holds,
>though.
>
>-- 
>--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Violence never solves
>Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | problems, it just changes
>521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | them into more subtle
>Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  | problems.
>