WebM license third-party submission

[Chris DiBona]

Well, thanks for this update.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at gmail.com> wrote:

> For a variety of reasons of the sort that justify the use of private
> mailing lists, the Board hasn't gone into detail on the background to the
> corporate status episode, just publishing summary facts of the restoration
> of status. For the benefit of everyone here's the summary I posted on
> Slashdot to a similar question:
>
> > The story here was that, much to the current Board's surprise, it turned
> out that accounts for some previous years (well in the past, in the early
> days of OSI) had been created but for some unknown reason not filed with the
> State of California and the IRS. The first the current Board knew of this
> was when we heard about the suspension. We immediately located the old
> accounts and arranged for them to be retrospectively filed, and in response
> the State lifted its suspension. While not desirable, we've since heard from
> many sources that this is an all-too-common event for all-volunteer
> organisations.
> >
> > We believe everything is now up to date.  We (mainly OSI's Treasurer
> Danese Cooper actually) worked on these issues last year with the help of
> DLA Piper (law firm donating their service) and today we are completely in
> the good graces of both the IRS and the California State Franchise Tax
> Board.
> >
> > If you are aware of other issues that haven't popped up on our radar,
> please tell osi (at) opensource (dot) org so we can fix them.
>
> I suggest that any follow-up on this subject happen on license-discuss.
>
> S.
>
> On May 26, 2010, at 22:39, Chris DiBona wrote:
>
> > (i hadn't included the questions about the corp as someone let me know
> what
> > happened)
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Please hold off on submitting this while we determine certain
> compatibility
> >> issues internally at google. We'll engage with osi in a couple of weeks,
> >> likely as not.  I would also point out that we're uncomfortable with
> make
> >> licesne proliferation worse and in the event we do submit it, we will
> want
> >> a
> >> couple of changes to how OSI does licenses.
> >>
> >> 1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license.
> >> 2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm.
> We
> >> are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
> >> 3) We need to know OSI's current corporate status. I heard that osi was
> a
> >> california corporation again, but I would like to know, from the group,
> >> that
> >> this is true for 2010 and that there aren't any issues there.
> >>
> >> This might sound stridant, but I think that OSI needs to be more open
> about
> >> its workings to retain credibility in the space.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> --
> >> Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> >> Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> >> Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
> > Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
> > Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
>
>


-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20100526/3c1a3f65/attachment.html>