[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

[John Dallaway]

Richard

On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400 you wrote:

> There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
> that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
> debatable.

[ snip ]

> 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the
> point of this list's hosting on opensource.org, i.e. late 2011). I
> believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for
> OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally
> lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was
> acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I
> believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,
> particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a
> troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is
> likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,
> say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.

[ snip ]

> eCos License version 2.0
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html

[ snip ]

> I am not sure what if anything we should do about all of these, other
> than NOSA 2.0 which clearly requires a decision by the board for the
> very patient Mr. Geurts. If perchance anyone reading this was
> associated with one of the listed license submissions, by all means
> please indicate whether you wish to revive review of the license in
> question.

Please do revive review of the eCos License version 2.0. I have
responded to all discussion and followed up with a status enquiry Dec
30, 2014. If there are any further questions, please let me know.

Regards

John Dallaway