[License-review] For Legacy Approval: eCos License version 2.0 [ was Re: License Committee Report ]

John Dallaway john at dallaway.org.uk
Mon Sep 7 07:02:53 UTC 2015


Richard

Is it possible to put the submission for legacy approval of the eCos
License version 2.0 before the OSI board on September 9?

Regards

John Dallaway


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:39:29 -0400
From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
To: license-review at opensource.org
Subject: [License-review] License Committee Report
Message-ID: <20150906213929.GA6423 at sharpeleven.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

This is my report for licenses currently submitted to OSI, though it
doesn't address certain old submissions that were noted in
"Outstanding license submissions" other than NOSA 2.0.[1]

[ snip ]

[1]https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-June/001003.html


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Outstanding license submissions
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:22:32 +0100
From: John Dallaway <john at dallaway.org.uk>
To: license-review at opensource.org

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



More information about the License-review mailing list