[License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Tue Feb 6 10:01:27 UTC 2024

I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other things
that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing with
legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal neophyte who
thinks they've invented better licensing is not.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 09:24 Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com> wrote:

> While I also agree that there's been nothing usefully new here in the last
> few years, if one discontinues the process of approving new licenses, then
> you shift the meaning of OSI from an organization that defends the
> integrity of the OSD, to one that merely defends a set of stone tablets,
> forever unchangeable in a world where worldwide formal and case law
> changes continuously. At the very least, updates to existing licenses may
> be called for. Others today are also calling for an update from mere
> copyright licensing towards using contracts so as to address emerging
> concerns. So I don't think an approval process should be shut off
> entirely; but setting the guidance that it may be easier to pass a new US
> Constitution amendment or launch a new major religion may be worth
> telegraphing.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, McCoy Smith wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> > Unfortunately, these sort of “whimsical,” unserious,
> impossible-to-satisfy-the-OSI-definition submissions are a fairly regular
> phenomenon these days on the OSI e-mail lists. I
> > think the submitters who do this were emboldened by whoever it was that
> submitted the Vaccine License back in 2019. Shame on that person for
> starting the trend.
> >
> > I think OSI was going to use the Vaccine License submission and
> subsequent history as an example of what people should not be doing (and
> probably should also have a policy that
> > potentially frowns upon anonymized submissions) and put something about
> that in the pages on license discussion/review. Might want to revisit that.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 8:03 AM
> > To: mccoy at lexpan.law
> > Cc: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative
> >
> >
> >
> > It is a crayon license, and the author points out its whimsical nature
> while wishfully saying the terms bind anyway. There is no point in passing
> it on for disapproval or doing
> > anything else to take it seriously. Just politely tell the author there
> isn't a chance.
> >
> >
> >
> > IMO if you want to help the open source community, don't draft a new
> license. I actually do not see value in even continuing the approval
> process at this late date. It's just not
> > the case that any new submission contributes useful art.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 15:52 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> >
> >       And asked for review. Which he got.
> >
> >       Do you disagree that this license can’t get OSI approval?
> >
> >
> >
> >       From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> >       Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 7:47 AM
> >       To: mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >       Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu
> Initiative
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that he sent his review request to license-discuss.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 15:45 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> >
> >       Daniel:
> >
> >       In order to have a license reviewed, you need to provide the
> assurances and information about the license (
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/)
> >       including that it doesn’t violate any of the OSD. You have not
> done any of that.
> >
> >       Since Section 4 of this license does violate OSD 6, it’s not
> approvable. So I’d suggest that this license be forwarded to the Board for
> denial.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       From: License-discuss <
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Mihai
> >       Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2024 10:10 AM
> >       To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >       Subject: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi friends,
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope this message finds you well and embracing the natural world with
> enthusiasm and care.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm reaching out from the Anu Initiative, a nonprofit organization
> rooted in Dublin, Ireland, with a mission deeply intertwined with the love
> and restoration of our
> > planet. We are a collective of nature enthusiasts leveraging innovative
> technologies to mend the environmental scars left by human activities and
> certain technological
> > impacts.
> >
> >
> >
> > At Anu Initiative, we are not just another entity in the environmental
> sphere. We diverge from the conventional path of carbon credits, focusing
> instead on tangible
> > ecological contributions. Our open-source platform epitomizes
> transparency, allowing anyone to witness the journey of every contribution
> made towards a greener
> > tomorrow.
> >
> >
> >
> > As we continue to weave technology with nature's restoration, we are
> reviewing our Open License Agreement to ensure it aligns with our core
> values of Transparency,
> > Passion, Integrity, Commitment, and Community. Your expertise and
> insights would be invaluable in this process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Could you please review our agreement?
> https://forum.anuinitiative.org/t/anu-initiative-open-license-agreement-ai-ola/80
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for considering our request. Together, we can turn the tide
> towards a sustainable future.
> >
> >
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Mihai
> >
> > Founder and CTO
> >
> >
> >
> > Mobile: +353 (0) 87 450 8112
> > E-mail: daniel at anuinitiative.org
> >
> > Web-site: https://anuinitiative.org
> >
> >
> > Let’s take the 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20240206/2dccca99/attachment-0001.html>