<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Editable Body Start -->I will point out that the most “famous” example wasn’t CC0 but NOSA 2.0 where one single individual, representing the OSI in an offical capacity, withheld any voting on the license for three years despite it being
a replacement for a prior version and hence no proliferation issue, addressed some long standing concerns about that license, was already listed as a “special purpose license” with limited purview, had already been discussed on this list and was recommended
for approval by the majority of participants and the former list moderator.
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That CC declined to go through the same experience is understandable and it appears that NASA has given up on the process entirely. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For anyone to argue that there wasn’t undue influence on this list in the past is...interesting. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Whether this has been adequately addressed with the current, mostly untested, guidelines is debatable but the concern with “undue influence”, “loud voices” and “opaque process” is not without merit or past evidence.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Speaking only for myself,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nigel</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Original Body Start -->
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div class="gw_quote" style="border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid; padding-top:6px; font-size:14px;">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:richard.fontana@opensource.org">richard.fontana@opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Friday, Mar 15, 2019, 5:27 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span>license-discuss@lists.opensource.org <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]</span></div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
For many submitted licenses, there is no vote because the submitter essentially withdraws from the process (formally or otherwise) in the face of negative reaction on the mailing list. One of the more famous examples of this was the submission of CC0, where
Creative Commons withdrew the license from consideration after the discussion came to center on criticism of the "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this<br>
document." language. But in most cases the community (license-review) reaction clearly points in one direction. Historically there was a tendency to encourage the license submitter to withdraw. </div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">...<br>
<br>
That might suggest that if there's a loud voices problem, it is not about undue influence on *OSI*, but undue influence on the license <span style="font-size: 10pt;">submitter (i.e., the reaction to the license is so overwhelmingly</span></div>
<div class="PlainText">negative that the license submitter informally or formally withdraws from the process).</div>
</span></font></blockquote>
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style></blockquote>
<!-- BlackBerry Work Original Body End --><!-- BlackBerry Work Editable Body End -->
</body>
</html>