[License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses

Fri Mar 27 16:28:17 UTC 2020

Sure. In my list the start of the 15 months review is essentially a
deprecation. I didn't want to use that word, because deprecation to me
implies the decision is already final. But I'm not against it either.

henrik

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 4:45 PM Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not deprecate first?  Wait a year or two and then start the removal
> process.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 27, 2020, at 5:20 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
> wrote:
>
> 
> This is clearly a proposal that's been a long time coming. Whether it will
> be these licenses or some others, eventually OSI will be in a situation
> where we want to remove approved licenses.
>
> Since this is a serious decision, I'd like to open a separate thread on
> what might be an appropriate process to implement such removals. I'll
> propose something to get the discussion started:
>
>  - There should be a formally elected person or committee with authority
> even just to (formally) start discussion about removing a specific license.
> This is to protect and ease tensions in situations where 1 list member
> proposes a license for removal and a proponent or user of that license is
> therefore forced to forcefully defend it.
>
>  - As this process doesn't exist yet, I'm not saying that Josh' proposal
> is out of place. But if such a gatekeeping process existed, this would not
> be counted as a proposal to act. In such a situation Josh may have phrased
> his email differently, for example as a question: "Why was this approved
> back in 2002?" or "Is anybody using this license?".
>
> - If the discussion on license-review seems to support the view that the
> license should be removed, because it fullfils some criteria that should be
> defined, the license removal committee can proceed to a removal process.
>
> - The criteria for removal could be: 1) license does not in fact conform
> with the OSD (was erroneously approved), 2) does not appear to be used for
> any currently available/working software, 3) (this one is contentious)
> license is de-facto only used in ways that go against the spirit of OSD /
> software freedom.
>
> Steps in removal process:
>
> - OSI (license removal committee) will document the exact reasons why
> license is proposed for removal.
>
> - OSI will spend reasonable efforts to find out whether license is still
> in use.
>
> - In particular, OSI will contact the original author/submitter of the
> license and all projects that at the time of approval were using or
> intending to use the license.
>
> - If any existing users are found, OSI will discuss whether they can and
> are willing to move to a better license. Also it is possible that a project
> using the license doesn't object to removal even if they continue to use it.
>
> - If the license author can still be found, OSI will discuss whether the
> author is willing to publish a new version that would comply with our
> current view of the OSD. In this case the license should be superceded
> rather than removed. (I think at this point we should focus on removing
> licenses considered mistakes. Reducing the number of licenses is a separate
> concern.)
>
> - Alternatively the license author can propose that the license be
> deprecated and removed.
>
> - After the following steps have been taken, OSI will document the outcome
> and conclusions so far, and propose that the license be removed from the
> list of approved licenses. This notification will be sent to
> license-review, the affiliate members list, a list of corporate
> sponsors/interested parties (if it exists?), other stakeholders like Linux
> distributions, media, etc... For best publicity, it makes sense to batch
> together all concurrent removal proposals into one notification.
>
> - A feedback period of 15 months is required before the actual removal
> takes place.
>
> - After 15 months, the license removal committee, having considered all
> feedback it has  received, and taken into account potential newly found
> projects where license is in use, can decide to remove the license from the
> list of approved licenses.
>
> - Removed licenses will be listed on a separate page on opensource.org,
> together with the decision and justification that caused them to be removed.
>
>
>
> henrik
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:17 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> A submitter to License-Review just pointed out that we actually approved
>> this license back in 2002:
>>
>> https://opensource.org/licenses/AAL
>>
>> There is absolutely no question that the AAL would not meet our license
>> requirements today.  Both the badgeware requirements and the presumption
>> of single authorship are prohibitive.  Fortunately, the AAL is also not
>> popular; in fact, I can't even find it in the Github survey stats.
>>
>> As such, I move that the license be submitted to the board for removal
>> from the list of approved licenses, possibly by creating a new category
>> of "suspended and nonreusable licenses".
>>
>> --
>> Josh Berkus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
> +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
> www.openlife.cc
>
> My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200327/50d9665b/attachment-0001.html>