[License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon May 20 13:41:43 UTC 2019

One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in addition to a discussion period.

On 5/20/19, 9:07 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Pamela Chestek" <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:

    On 5/19/19 5:23 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
    > Statistically, you may be right, but I'd still like to challenge this.
    > It is my belief that the list is merely functioning efficiently. I
    > often read review discussions, and if I agree with the
    > majority/consensus, I stay silent. It doesn't mean I'm not active.
    That may be true of you, but there are some bullies on the lists. That
    means that some who disagree may be silent because they don't want to be
    bullied. So we can't assume that silence means agreement.
    Pamela S. Chestek
    Chestek Legal
    PO Box 2492
    Raleigh, NC 27602
    +1 919-800-8033
    pamela at chesteklegal.com
    License-discuss mailing list
    License-discuss at lists.opensource.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list