[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 22:54:56 UTC 2019
As opposed to the transparent and fair system where one individual held up the vote on a license for three years AFTER consensus had been reached on the list for approval and the former moderator had so recommended to the board?
I’m not advocating for a voting process but the current system is opaque despite having a public mailing list.
ObDis Speaking only for myself
From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com<mailto:rfontana at redhat.com>> Yes
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019, 10:33 AM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org <license-discuss at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss at lists.opensource.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] history of l-r/org relationship [was Re: [License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License]
Potential for abuse in certain cases -- suppose a company writes a
controversial license and wants it to get OSI-approved, or wants to
see a third-party-submitted license rejected, and tries to manipulate
the process by encouraging employees to sign up for individual
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:48 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/19 9:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > One solution could be anonymous voting by OSI members for license approval in addition to a discussion period.
> Interesting thought.
> 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
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss