[License-discuss] Proposed license decision process

[Jim Jagielski]

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose 
Nothin', don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free, no no 

> On Dec 7, 2018, at 3:57 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:
> 
> It's nice that the purpose is acknowledged to be "software freedom". However, people wanting a programatic definition of that will be disappointed.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Bruce
> 
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:41 PM Richard Fontana <richard.fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
> At a recent meeting, the OSI Board discussed requests to clarify the
> license approval process (documented at
> https://opensource.org/approval). We've drafted the guidelines below,
> which we aim to follow when reviewing licenses, to ensure that a
> license will be approved only if it conforms to the Open Source
> Definition and provides software freedom.
> 
> "Decision Date" for a license normally means (a) 60 days after a
> license is initially submitted for review, and (b) 30 days after
> submission of a revised version of a license that was previously
> submitted for review. A license is considered to be submitted for
> review if it follows the process set forth at
> https://opensource.org/approval. While we will try our best to adhere
> strictly to this 60/30 day Decision Date definition, circumstances may
> require us to extend the Decision Date further.
> 
> On the Decision Date, the OSI will announce one of four possible decisions:
> 
> 1. Defer for another 30-day discussion cycle, if community discussion
> of conformance of the license to the OSD remains active
> 
> 2. Approve, if (a) there is sufficient consensus emerging from
> community discussion that approval is justified, and (b) the OSI
> determines that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and
> guarantees software freedom
> 
> 3. Reject if (a) the OSI determines that the license cannot
> practically be remedied to adequately guarantee software freedom, or
> (b) there is sufficient consensus emerging from community discussion
> that the license should be rejected for substantive reasons, or (c)
> the license is problematic for nonsubstantive reasons (for example, it
> is poorly drafted or significantly duplicative of one or more existing
> OSI-approved licenses)
> 
> 4. Withhold approval, if (a) the OSI determines that approval would
> require reworking the license and (b) the license submitter appears
> willing and able to revise the license constructively
> 
> We would appreciate your comments.
> 
> - Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org