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

[Yutaka MATSUBARA]

Hello Richard,

Could you tell us statuses of discussions about other licenses on the 
table as well? Are those still under discussion?

Thanks,
Yutaka

On 9/11/15 10:06, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Good news, everyone: the OSI Board has granted legacy approval to the
> eCos License version 2.0.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 08:02:53AM +0100, John Dallaway wrote:
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>