Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?

[Smith, McCoy]

As I indicated in my email of a couple of weeks ago, Intel would be OK
if the Intel Open Source License is deprecated (or whatever term is
found to be acceptable by OSI for the concept of discouraging future use
of the license), despite the fact that the new tiering policy is not at
this time retroactive.  

I'll leave it to OSI to decide to what extent you want the input of
anyone else out there to make a decision on what tier the Intel Open
Source License should fit into.

McCoy Smith
Intel Corporation
Legal Department

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:chuck at codefab.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:12 PM
To: Laura Majerus
Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?

Laura Majerus wrote:
> While I don't yet know exactly what the license proliferation
committee
> will recommend to the board about tiering overall, I do know that the
> Gpl will not be placed in a non-[recommended] tier. No way.

Of course not.  There are lots of reasons to recommend the GPL, it has
surely 
formed a self-sustaining ecosphere of software.  But it's not for
everyone.

Who is on the license proliferation committee, BTW?

Can we disinherit them and create a license anti-proliferation
committee, 
instead, possibly with some discussion as to criterea for who should be
on it?

> I personally think we need a word instead of 'deprecated' by the way
> because it has some negative meanings in the non-technical world.

It has a negative meaning in the technical world, too: I guess you're
safe 
using the word around us techies, we won't be confused. :-)

> 'Not recomended anymore' is closer to our intent.

OK.  Then could someone talk about what happens now with a license like
the 
Intel license?

-- 
-Chuck