[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

[Kevin Fleming]

Note that the W3C has recently published a new 'Software and Document
License' which supersedes previous licenses and will be used for licensing
software, and specifications that the W3C wishes to publish under a
permissive license.

The license can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
wrote:

> Hi license-review,
>
> There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
> that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
> debatable.
>
> 1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source
> Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in
> fact).
>
> I intend to post something separately about this one.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Forget Me Not License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000072.html
>
> Svoboda
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html
>
> No Nonsense Open Source License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html
>
> APL AROS Public License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html
>
> Symisc Public License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/000484.html
>
> "BSD-based anti-patent license"
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/000522.html
>
> Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000547.html
>
> Public Software License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000750.html
>
> Russian Permissive Free Software License
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000758.html
>
> eCos License version 2.0
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html
>
> GG License 1.0
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/000968.html
>
> I am not including here license submissions that I believe it is
> fairly clear were withdrawn from consideration by the submitter.
>
> You might argue that several of these were not really worth extensive
> review, but a clear decision ought to have been made nonetheless, and
> in any case that view can't apply to *all* of the license submissions
> in this set.
>
>
> 3. Really Old license submissions found by Engel Nyst:
> (see
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/000733.html
> )
>
> Zope Public License 2.1
> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html
>
> wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html
>
> W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834
>
>
> I am not sure how exhaustive Engel Nyst's research was but I have to
> wonder whether there were other lost license approval requests from
> the 2005-2011 period.
>
> 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.
>
> Is there anything we should do to take better care of license approval
> submissions? It was suggested a while back that we consider using an
> issue tracker for all license approval requests.
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150612/974983ea/attachment.html>