[License-discuss] License Review working group asks for community input on its recommendations

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Jan 27 03:09:13 UTC 2023

> The license does not have terms that structurally put the licensor in a
more favored position than any licensee.

Please use "must". Does is like "shall". This is one of a zillion
references on why not to use "shall":

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 6:12 PM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.chestek at opensource.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> The OSI has now posted the recommendations of the License Review Working
> Group. The blog post is at
> https://blog.opensource.org/the-license-review-working-group-asks-for-community-input-on-its-recommendations/,
> with a wiki version available for comments.
> https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working%20Groups%20%26%20Incubator%20Projects/License%20Review/#
> Comments will be open on the wiki for four months to allow adequate
> time. The OSI will also have a session in the Legal and Policy Issues
> Dev Room at FOSDEM, https://fosdem.org/2023/schedule/event/license_review/
> Looking forward to all of your comments and insight.
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Bruce Perens K6BP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230126/43a3dd16/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list