[License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?

[Kevin P. Fleming]

I don't understand how the licenses could no longer be 'valid', unless
some sort of law or other external factor has made them so. They may
be obsolete, superseded,  not recommended for use by their
author/steward, etc., but their text is likely just as 'valid' today
as when they were published.

McCoy's suggestion of placing them in the 'superseded' category seems
correct, assuming they had ever been approved by OSI.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:58 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> This would be a relatively elementary task if the mailing list were more easily searchable....
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: VM (Vicky) Brasseur <osi-lists at vmbrasseur.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:45 AM
> > To: mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > Cc: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?
> >
> > That's the process I'm familiar with, but I also haven't been paying a lot of
> > attention to it lately so my memory may be failing me there.
> >
> > Larry, could you please confirm whether those versions were OSI-approved
> > when they _were_ valid?
> >
> > My guess is that they were, but I don't want to assume and the SPDX team
> > can't find definitive proof either way.
> >
> > --V
> >
> > McCoy Smith wrote on 8/9/21 10:17:
> > > I think the earlier versions, however, should be put in the "superseded"
> > > category to capture any legacy uses? That's how others have been handled.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 8:08 AM
> > >> To: mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > >> Cc: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> > >> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?
> > >>
> > >> McCoy is correct. Versions of AFL and OSL **prior to version 3.0**
> > >> are no longer valid. Please remove those earlier versions. /Larry
> > >>
> > >> Lawrence Rosen
> > >> 707-478-8932
> > >> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> > >> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:56 PM
> > >> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > >> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?
> > >>
> > >> Since that's Larry Rosen's license, he'd probably know best. I talked
> > >> to
> > > him
> > >> last week, should I ping him? I think he's on this list.
> > >> I think what probably happened is the older versions got superseded
> > >> in
> > > favor
> > >> of the newer versions, although typically that's shown in the
> > >> superseded
> > > list.
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org>
> > >>> On Behalf Of VM (Vicky) Brasseur
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:13 PM
> > >>> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > >>> Subject: [License-discuss] Status of earlier AFL licenses?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi, folks!
> > >>>
> > >>> The SPDX folks are trying to sort out the status of the versions of
> > >>> the Academic Free License prior to v3.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> Basically, the Wayback Machine shows that the earlier versions are
> > >>> OSI- approved but they're not showing that way on the site anymore.
> > >>> Searching the list archives didn't turn up any information that
> > >>> would
> > >> clear
> > >>> things up.
> > >>>
> > >>> Does anyone have any information about these?
> > >>>
> > >>> See this GitHub issue for details:
> > >>> https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/1327
> > >>>
> > >>> --V
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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.ope
> > > nsourc
> > >> e.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.ope
> > > nsource.org
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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