<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Widely. Autocorrect fail. <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But the danger, or damage, is in how the body of licenses affect the interpretation of the OSD.<br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">__________________________<br>Van Lindberg<br><a href="mailto:van.lindberg@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">van.lindberg@gmail.com</a><br>m: 214.364.7985</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 10:55 AM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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>Wisely or widely?</p>
    <p>Agree re "widely." Which also means that leaving them alone will
      also have little impact.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Pam<br>
    </p>
    <pre cols="72">Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>
919-800-8033
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a></pre>
    <div>On 2/8/20 9:38 AM, VanL wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
              919-800-8033<br>
              <a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
            </p>
            On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:<br>
            <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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"><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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">eric@wwahammy.com</a>><br>
                        <b>>>Cc:</b> License submissions for OSI
                        review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
                  <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
          <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset></fieldset>
      <pre>_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<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>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>