(Re)opening discussion for "BlackBox Component Builder Open Source License"

[Treutwein Bernhard]

I recently (3/Nov/2009) submitted the "BlackBox Component Builder Open Source
License"  for legacy approval (as a happy customer).

There was a short burst of discussion on the mailing list with the result
that the "BlackBox Component Builder Open Source License" is a variant of the
"Sleepycat license".

Now I didn't find any trace of the "BlackBox Component Builder Open Source
License" in the status mail and I'm curious why it does not show up at all. 

Will it be included next term? 

What happened?

Do I have a severe misunderstanding of the approval process when I expect an
explicit approval?

regards
--
  Bernhard Treutwein
  Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
  Ref. VI.3 Anwendungsbetreuung
  Martiusstr. 4
  80802 München
  Tel. 089 2180-2774
  Fax. 089 2180-992774
  Mobil. 0152-01549335
  e-mail: bernhard treutwein (at) verwaltung uni-muenchen de
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Cc: osi at opensource.org
> Subject: License Committee Report for November 2009
> 
> 
> I'm the chair of the license approval committee.  This is my report
> for the current set of licenses under discussion.  The OSI board will
> be meeting November 11.
> 
> --
> 
> Title: LaTeX Project Public License
> Submission: 
>   
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:839:200909:nmnpkpkd
> lalddebkknll
> License: http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/
> Comments: Legacy approval, complicated license, but on that basis,
>   Bruce, Ernie, Chuck, John, Dag-Erling, and Michael all say yes;
>   nobody no.
> Recommend: approval
> 
> --
> 
> Title: BSD license (PostgreSQL variant)
> Submission: 
>   
> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:874:200909:kodinndf
ijkmchmflood
License: In the submission
Comments: License is not generic and the disclaimer doesn't cover the
  PostgreSQL project submittors.
Recommend: send it back for revision

--

Title: TVA Open Source License 
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:855:200909:ocbonljbkalkbhkdbaml
License: 
 
https://naspi.tva.com/PhasorMeasurementData/Documents/TVA%20Open%20Source%20A
greement.doc
 
https://naspi.tva.com/PhasorMeasurementData/Documents/TVA%20Open%20Source%20A
greement%20with%20tracking%20changes%20from%20NOSA%20source.doc
 
https://naspi.tva.com/PhasorMeasurementData/Documents/TVA%20Open%20Source%20A
greement.txt
Comments: Not clear what their copyright status is in re 17 USC
  105. Commentators had questions, but legal staff unwillint to review
Recommend: no approval without prejudice

--

Title: Falcon Programming Language License
Submission: 
  http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:mss:826:naokadpjdjicihdgloog
License: http://www.falconpl.org/index.ftd?page_id=license_1_1
Comments: Clearly OSD-compatible but ... it's the GPL with an added
  freedom to embed the language interpreter creating a single work
  without invoking the terms of the GPL.  If that were it, then we
  could leave it there, but Giancarlo adds required attribution above
  and beyond that required by the GPL.
Recommend: Still inadequate discussion