[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

[Andrew DeMarsh]

I think that that's a very good idea, the only question I would have is how
we vet "real" people, or if this would be a policy only to ignore/reject
obvious pseudonyms/fake names etc.

I only ask as I can see new submission names being anything from "Devin
Nullquest" to "John Smith" and legal reviewer being "Susan Youlang" to
"Janice Miller" (the obvious to the non-obvious).

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:11 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> My point was not that there must be some credential hurdle one must meet
> in order to be satisfy the “legal review” test, but that you not be able to
> say – as the Vaccine License submission did – “The license was prepared by
> a licensing professional. In the client's best interest, the legal review
> cannot be made public” without identifying that person (in the same way the
> submitter was not identified).
>
>
>
> So basically, putting a non-pseudonymous name to both the submitter and to
> the legal reviewer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew DeMarsh <andrew.dema at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2020 10:04 AM
> *To:* mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
>
>
>
> I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
> requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
> express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
> that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI
> License to exist which fills a need not addressed by previously approved
> licenses. This should deal with this kind of issue and other licenses that
> are merely a rebranded form of another license. I only wish to point out
> that the OSI be careful when trying to qualify what counts as a legal
> person they worked with as this could harshly affect some people's ability
> to participate/problem solve issues specific to their country if the
> definition is too exact. (some countries may have exceptionally few people
> that deal specifically in the idea of software licensing or deal with it at
> all and specific wording requiring the person to be a Lawyer specialising
> in software licensing would put an undue burden on them to be represented).
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:31 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> In view of the fact that the OSI is going to be forming a committee to
> review the process:
>
> https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working+Groups+%26+Incubator+Projects/Licens
> e+List+Working+Group/, here's one thing to consider:
>
>
>
> In late 2019, a submission was made to approve the "Vaccine License":
>
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
> 019-October/004420.html
>
> The submission purported to satisfy all the criteria required for a
> submission (listed here: https://opensource.org/approval), stated that it
> had undergone legal review and "was prepared by a licensing professional."
> It was filed by "Filli Liberandum," which almost certainly is a pseudonym.
>
>
>
> The commenters on this submission pointed out the license did not meet the
> OSD, and it was rather quickly rejected by the Board:
>
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
> 020-January/004635.html
>
>
>
> It turns out that the author of this license was Bruce Perens, who now
> admits it was "a joke" and a "test"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTsc1m78BUk (scroll forward to 44:00). He
> even responded (using his real name and e-mail account) to the
> License-Review thread, suggesting that the license that he drafted (and
> most
> likely also submitted under a pseudonym) not be approved:
>
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2
> 019-October/004427.html
>
>
>
> Might it be time to require license submitters to actually identify
> themselves, the organization they represent, and the name of the legal
> person they worked with in creating and submitting the license?
>
> I know this was a minor blip in the process, but isn't the all-volunteer
> Board busy enough that they shouldn't have to go through the motions of
> convening a meeting and scheduling a vote on someone's joke proposal?
>
>
>
> [I'd also suggest that people caught doing these sorts of non-serious or
> pseudonymous submissions not have the right to submit or comment on the
> mailing lists in the future]
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200825/d43f21ef/attachment-0001.html>