[License-discuss] The pro se license constructor
bruce at perens.com
Sun Mar 17 18:02:36 UTC 2019
I don't have a problem with improving the process. We have a number of
proposals so far:
1. Use a communication system other than email. The main advantage seems to
be better tracking of a discussion. They also have disadvantages. I would
at least replace the mailing list archiver software. Pipermail has a strong
bias against MIME email which does not fit the times, and archives rich
format email horridly.
2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear
how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or
uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev mailing list.
3. Get more lawyers. I do see lots of lawyers in the discussion, and nobody
is keeping out lawyers.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
> While there were problems with NOSA 2.0 it was an improvement on NOSA 1.3.
> But as I said, that ship has sailed and perception is perception.
> You can take the observation I provided that the concerns of unfairness
> are not without merit in intended spirit of hoping the process gets better
> as opposed to just me grinding old axes...or not.
> *From: *Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 11:15 AM
> *To: *license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <
> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor
> Oops - sorry about the incorrect Latin.
> Nigel, if lawyers all agreed there would be no need for courts. OSI had
> it's own counsel arguing against elements of NOSA, and there were other
> such counsel on the list. While I have only been participating for a year,
> I saw significant problems in the license and concurred with the OSI
> representative. My feedback from discussion with real NASA users is that
> they don't like the license either.
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 07:05 Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>> Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need
>> for legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer
>> in a specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to
>> meet the required regulations for a governmental agency that laypersons can
>> simply say “Nope” and that’s pretty much the end of that.
>> I guess that ship has sailed and I should simply just drop it in the
>> interest of harmony but if there is soul searching to be done by the OSI
>> then it would be wise to consider why it appears that the current state of
>> affairs on license approval is perceived to be unfair.
>> *From: *Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, Mar 15, 2019, 4:32 PM
>> *To: *license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <
>> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>> *Subject: *[License-discuss] The per se license constructor
>> While we are discussing license approval, this morning's submission had
>> no legal review, the excuse being that it was a mashup of what was
>> presumably the work of unidentified lawyers.
>> There is great danger in using a license that has had no legal review,
>> since you have little idea of how it will work in court. The per se license
>> constructor transmits that danger to others who use their license.
>> I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is
>> entirely outside of the OSD.
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss