[License-review] Continued discussion of the Scripting FSL

[Engel Nyst]

I see no problem with a recommendation to the submitter to use an open 
process in their community to fix their license. As long as they still 
try to draft a license. It should support the needs of more people than 
the drafter alone, and it will fix more or less issues before re-submittal.

(Since some of his goals are incompatible with OSD, his license will be 
proprietary at least until he willingly and knowingly rescinds them. 
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't trust his project(s)/contributions after 
either, because the software patents legal mess gives a leverage to 
patent trolls.)

I see potentially problematic points with your phrasing, though.

On 11/17/2013 08:31 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> I'm also tempted to shut down the discussion, for a related reason: the
> purpose of this list is not to serve as a replacement for a healthy
> community discussion of a license. If you/your community/your project have
> not already conducted a review of the basic license, this isn't the place
> to get that done.
>
> Thoughts on the process part of that?
>

Well, there were no problems with the process here. I think people 
pointed out how S-FSL as presented is incompatible with OSD in several 
obvious ways, and so are some goals of the drafter (no patents license, 
control over "private" sharing).
My point is this license doesn't fail the license-review stage only for 
some procedural reason, recommended or not, existing or upcoming.

Also, I hope the purpose of this list does include healthy community 
discussion of a license[1]. :)


My personal suggestion for Elmar is to take his time to digest the 
content of the critiques to his license, and indeed, as you note, to 
submit it to open and honest review to the community around his project, 
if any.


[1]http://opensource.org/approval, What Will Happen, 1.