[License-review] New license submission

[Chris Jones]

On 05/09/2013 10:00 PM, license-review-request at opensource.org wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:31:35 -0700
> From: Luis Villa <luis at lu.is>
> To: License Review <license-review at opensource.org>, 	License Discuss
> 	<license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] New license submission
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAFPTOkWw2NJjbZ7RU7pxU8Fn7Q8mdqAYft4+5_MXnjjMEYvawg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> [I've moderated this list for the moment to respect the time of list
> subscribers. Please send any followup not related to the substance of
> this license to license-discuss.]
>
> [I would also remind everyone in this thread that we have a code of
> conduct: http://opensource.org/codeofconduct/licensing There is at
> least one clear-cut case of violation in this thread (not Chris!) and
> others are flirting with the line. Apologies are always an appropriate
> cure.]
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chris Jones <chrisjones at spin.net.au> wrote:
>> I have to admit, I am very disappointed with the reaction that we have
>> received from the Open Source Initiative upon submission of our new license.
> Hi, Chris-
>
> It is unfortunate that you're disappointed. As others here have
> discussed, we have long-set rules that licenses/license submissions
> must meet. These rules reflect both the values of our movement and ~
> 15 years of practical experience implementing those values.
>
> Folks here politely and clearly pointed out where your license and the
> required supplementary materials came up short. It would have been
> helpful if they'd pointed directly to the sections of the Open Source
> Definition that you violated, but regardless, their criticisms are
> accurate and reflect our rules.
>
> While I feel that we already make pretty clear what these rules are to
> anyone submitting to the list, in an attempt to make sure that future
> license submitters cannot be surprised, I've done a few things today:
>
> - Edited the license-review list description to further emphasize that
> submissions must meet our requirements, and to link to the
> requirements rather than just naming them (top of
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> )
>
> - Edited the approval rules to make more clear exactly what must be
> submitted to the list (step #6 of http://opensource.org/approval).
>
> I also made two small substantive changes:
>
> - We've never actually required submitters to read the OSD. I always
> thought that was implicit; I've now made it explicit (step #1 of
> http://opensource.org/approval)
>
> - We've allowed people to link to licenses, rather than paste them
> into the email submission. I've changed that, though presumably we
> would not have rejected a submission that was otherwise correct
> (second bullet point of step #6 of http://opensource.org/approval)
>
> Also, in the future, I will try to moderate out submissions that do
> not meet these requirements.
>
> I hope that helps things going forward.
>
> Thanks-
> Luis
>
>

We are withdrawing any submissions to the Open Source Initiative at current.

We are very disappointed with the reaction that we have recieved from
our submission and the responese that we have received.

Our intentions have been made clear and we have been transparent at all
times with all the information that we have provided for the Open Source
Initiative.

I have asked several times for a simple step-by-step process of what we
need to provide/do/change to get our license submission reviewed, but
instead we received infamatory emails and responses on the mailing list
which provided none of the information that we asked for. It's very
disappointing for the Open Source Initiative. And it is great to see at
least one person was brave enough to point this out and expose the
internal issues from within the Open Source Initiative.

Thank you to Luis for clearing things up and ammending the website. I
have looked at the changes that you have made, yet. But changes were
absolutely necessary as the information provided on the website
regarding license submission requirements etc. was very misleading.

Regardless, we will be pressing ahead with our license (and future
licenses) with the full support of our own Standards and Licensing
Organization.

But I really do hope that the Open Source Initiative gets the internal
issue sorted out soon, for the sake of the FOSS community and licenses.



Regards

Chris Jones

Founder and Lead Software Architect
Paradise Software


-- 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
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=FJFi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----