[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Wed Sep 16 03:43:30 UTC 2015

Thanks, Richard, for the quick reply. So what is the next step?
Bryan

> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:28:24 -0400
> From: fontana at sharpeleven.org
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> 
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> I recently posted an update on several of the licenses that have been
> submitted for review, including NOSA 2.0:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-September/001144.html
> 
> First let me personally apologize for the amount of time that has
> passed since you first submitted NOSA 2.0 for approval. It's highly
> likely that if I had just kept my mouth shut NOSA 2.0 would have been
> approved in November 2013 following Luis Villa's recommendation.
> 
> Just speaking for myself here: I believe NOSA 2.0 is salvageable but I
> feel it may need some nontrivial revisions to reach the point where I
> personally would recommend it for OSI approval. For a potential open
> source license it is so complex that I just don't know if mailing list
> discussion is an adequate basis of review and analysis. Yet that is
> also the only good way (given the present state of review tools) to
> get community feedback on the license.
> 
> I'm really close to being tempted to suggest passing redlines back and
> forth (which particularly pains me as the non-famous author of the
> Harvey Birdman Rule).
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:36:38PM -0600, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> > Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet?  We at NASA continue
> > to anxiously await approval.  If I remember correctly, we first submitted it
> > for approval about two years ago.
> >  
> > Bryan Geurts
> >  
> > > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400
> > > From: fontana at opensource.org
> > > To: license-review at opensource.org
> > > Subject: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> > >
> > > 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
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> > https://lists.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/20150915/bf58d2ea/attachment.html>