[License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses
rfontana at redhat.com
Wed Apr 1 03:05:38 UTC 2020
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:43 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
> I understand the concept of decertifying or removing, but I am very
> confused by the use of the term "deprecate." The current category of
> licenses are:
> Popular and widely-used or with strong communities
> Special purpose
> Voluntarily retired
> Are y'all suggesting yet another category, "deprecated"? And how does
> that differ from some other categories, "non-reusable" in particular?
> Why can't problematic licenses just be reclassified as "non-reusable"?
"Non-reusable" was defined more specifically in the mid-2000s License
Proliferation Committee report
"Licenses in this group are specific to their authors and cannot be
reused by others. Many, but not all, of these licenses fall into the
category of vanity licenses."
An example given was the PHP license, recently discussed on license-review.
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
More information about the License-discuss