[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Wed May 22 18:36:34 UTC 2019

I brought it up in the context of a description of the past made by Richard.

There is also an active thread titled "history of l-r/org relationship" in which you are a participant.

The lack of CC0 on the list of OSI approved licenses is on topic for both threads don't you think?  2012 was probably the high water mark in terms of participation on L-R by a diverse group of open source proponents with differing opinions.  

If folks want to understand why L-R is the way it is today then looking at what happened over the course of the past seven years is useful because the list was very much different seven years ago.

On 5/22/19, 10:10 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo" <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:

    On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:43 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> wrote:
    > Let's clarify the history on CC0.
    > Objection to CC0 was primarily you and Bruce which made it DOA regardless of the opinions of the rest of the list.  There was no "quickly growing consensus" when they pulled the plug.
    And me, and others... This was the quickly growing consensus.
    Also, opposition to software patents is yet another good example of
    something that shouldn't surprise anyone that knows the basics of
    history of software freedom movement.
    Can we please let these old reviews go to rest now? Just because you
    disagree with something doesn't mean you need to bring it back here 7
    years later!
    henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
    +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
    My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
    License-discuss mailing list
    License-discuss at lists.opensource.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list