Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?

Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka at
Tue Apr 12 16:55:27 UTC 2005

Hi McCoy,

On Apr 12, 2005, at 8:30 AM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> 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.

Hmm, I think one of is confused.  My impression is that the new  
*criteria* for approval are NOT retroactive.  However, the "tiering"  
of preferred/approved/deprecated IS retroactive.

Perhaps Laura could be explicit about which is which?

-- Ernie P.

> 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]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 11:12 PM
> To: Laura Majerus
> Cc: license-discuss at
> 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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list