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

[Andrew DeMarsh]

>
> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> DFSG-noncompliant.  I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> a requirement within its contribution process.
>

I'm not sure that it would be required in the license text itself possibly
only interacting with the mailing list review, I am confused as to which
DFSG guideline this would run afoul, (Possibly 5?) could you elaborate?

It also does not stop people from submitting time wasters under a
> real, government-issued identity.
>

Theoretically if this happened repeatedly moderator action could be taken
or at least it would allow us to set email filters to properly sort the
emails and gauge how much effort to put into interacting with the review.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

> * McCoy Smith:
>
> > 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?
>
> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> DFSG-noncompliant.  I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> a requirement within its contribution process.
>
> > 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?
>
> Instead, you will have to review the provided identifying information
> and determine whether a proposal has genuine (business, community,
> artistic) interest behind it or not.  I doubt that it would save much
> time.
>
> It also does not stop people from submitting time wasters under a
> real, government-issued identity.
>
> > [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]
>
> How are you going to enforce that?
>
> There's going to be an exception process, just like in the Vaccine
> License (but some egal certificate instead of a one issued by the
> doctor).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ea179e7f/attachment.html>