[License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses

[Chris DiBona]

Without betraying my feelings on recently approved licenses. I've always
thought the osi could move licenses into a deprecated or 'legacy' state ,
so that programs under those licenses until date x could be considered open
source, but after that... I mean, there's already a break down of
superseded, etc on the Osi site....

But maybe that's too nuanced a view of things :-) Goodness knows the number
of projects adding on nonsense extra clauses continue to proliferate,
mostly in the JavaScript community....but I digress.

Chris

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 9:08 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> > Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:47 AM
> > To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Retroactively disapproving licenses
> >
> > To do some foreshadowing, the Working Group that was formed to make
> > recommendations for improving the license review process will soon be
> > publishing its recommendation. This was originally within their remit,
> but the
> > group agreed that it was complex enough (and frankly I think we were all
> a
> > little tired at this point) that it should be a separate undertaking.
> Personally, I
> > think the OSI has to tread carefully to avoid unintended consequences and
> > therefore needs to have a lot more information before deciding whether
> and
> > how to delist a license, such as:
> >
> > How many projects are using the licenses How significant they are How
> many
> > downstream users there are, and whether they have relied on the status as
> > "open source" in some way, e.g., suddenly a component will have to be
> > removed because it no longer has an "open source" license Whether anyone
> > is doing marketing around the term "open source" for a license considered
> > for delisting
> >
> > I'm sure with more thought there is other information that would be
> > relevant.
> >
> > So McCoy, are you volunteering to head up a working group to work on this
> > question? 😁
> >
> Hey, not like I haven't volunteered for OSI in a related area before:
>
> https://opensource.org/proliferation-report#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20document%20is%20to%20report,lessen%20or%20remove%20issues%20caused%20by%20license%20proliferation.%22
> 😉
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20221214/7a711f9b/attachment.html>