[License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative
Pamela Chestek
pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Tue Feb 6 17:05:10 UTC 2024
Bruce,
The OSI treats all license submitters with dignity and respect, no
matter how frivolous their licenses might be. That's what we did with
the anonymous person who submitted the Vaccine License, one who took
great pains to make it look like a legitimately held belief, including
creating a website. You then participated in the discussion of the
license in the same spirit, treating it as a legitimate request.
Where is your email where you withdrew the license because the OSI
didn't get the "prank"? The Vaccine License went to a Board vote on
January 10, 2020:
> The Vaccine License
>
> * *Motion* (Pam): The Board of the Open Source Initiative withholds
> approval of the Vaccine License as an Open Source Initiative
> Approved Open Source license.
> *Second* (Deb):
> *Discussion*: Review of the License Review committee's decision
> making and decision.
> *Vote*: 9 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstain
>
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Main/OSI%20Board%20of%20Directors/Board%20minutes/2020/2020-01-10
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-January/004645.html
You may also recall that once we learned it was you, your "prank"
resulted in your temporary ban from the license-review list as a
violation of the Code of Conduct. I'm glad you now realize that the joke
backfired on you.
Pam
On 2/5/2024 10:46 AM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
> Well that joke backfired on me, didn't it? I made a charicture of
> "ethical" licenses, and ended up withdrawing it because I was afraid
> they'd actually approve it! It was meant to be like a "moot bill". A
> lot of people did not then, and still do not get the concept. Silly me
> for expecting them to. I can't truly say I regret pranking them, though.
>
> Regarding anonymity, there is little proof of the identity of many
> people on this list. Debian always required that someone meet you and
> cross-sign your key before you could check in a package. You can
> always take charge of that if you want an effective filter.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 18:00 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> 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
> <https://blog.opensource.org/licensereview102019/> 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
> <mailto:daniel at anuinitiative.org>
>
> *Web-site:*https://anuinitiative.org
> <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
> <http://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/f7d5c5e1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list