<div dir="auto">That is a fair concern, but I think it could be mitigated. As a threshold matter, the licenses I look at as being possibly worthy of de-classification don't seem to be wisely used. For those few affected, there could be a deprecation period, and some of them could be revised.<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks,</div><div dir="auto">Van<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">__________________________<br>Van Lindberg<br><a href="mailto:van.lindberg@gmail.com">van.lindberg@gmail.com</a><br>m: 214.364.7985</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>As suggested, moving to license-discuss.</p>
<p>My concern with delisting is that someone will have relied on the
approval and it would be unfair, and a bad look for OSI, to
suddenly pull the rug out. <br>
</p>
<p>Pam<br>
</p>
<p>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</p>
On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
<pre cols="72">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>With the mild proviso that this discussion really should be
on license-discuss, I also think a deprecation committee is a
great idea.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Van<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM
McCoy Smith <a href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><mccoy@lexpan.law></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>>>From:</b> License-review
<<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Fontana<br>
<b>>>Sent:</b> Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM<br>
<b>>>To:</b> Eric Schultz <<a href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">eric@wwahammy.com</a>><br>
<b>>>Cc:</b> License submissions for OSI review
<<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
<b>>>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For
approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>I
agree with this. I would feel better if the
OSI had some process for reviewing and
potentially delisting or at least deprecating
approved licenses based on problematic
experiences with a >>license that were
not foreseeable at the time of approval. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">>>Richard</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I second the idea of a License
Deprecation Committee, a la the License
Proliferation Committee of ’04. In fact, you
could make it a License Proliferation and
Deprecation Committee to address both issues
(assuming there are people who believe license
proliferation is now a problem).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Given that there have been
existing licenses on the list that have been
argued as precedent for recent submissions which
were rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought
to be a serious look at some of the historical
approvals to test whether those approvals would
survive under current standards. I can think of
at least one license currently on the list which
I’ve looked at recently where I can’t justify it
as consistent with the OSD (or at least my
understanding thereof) or the approval process as
currently run. That’s not a situation that I
believe ought to exist and can play into the
perception that OSI approval is inconsistent
and/or arbitrary.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>