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

[Richard Fontana]

For the TOPPERS License, I will follow up separately on the existing thread.

Richard





On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 08:15:26AM -0700, Yutaka MATSUBARA wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review