Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?
LMajerus at fenwick.com
Tue Apr 12 18:33:31 UTC 2005
You are correct. We plan/hope to tier existing licenses and licenses going forward. It's not an easy task, but that's the plan. The three criteria are only for new licenses submitted going forward.
From: Ernest Prabhakar [mailto:prabhaka at apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:55 AM
To: Smith, McCoy
Cc: Chuck Swiger; Laura Majerus; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?
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 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
>> 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
> formed a self-sustaining ecosphere of software. But it's not for
> Who is on the license proliferation committee, BTW?
> Can we disinherit them and create a license anti-proliferation
> 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
> 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
> Intel license?
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged
and confidential. It is intended to be read only by the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that
any distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify
the sender and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500
and delete or destroy any copy of this message.
More information about the License-discuss