[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

[Richard Fontana]

Hi Bryan,

No other than that this is weighing heavily on my mind. I just need to
set aside some time to prepare a full set of comments on the license
text (which might not be extensive).

Regarding your earlier message, I don't think a conference call is
needed at this stage, but once I prepare said full set of comments we
can see where things stand.

Richard


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:49:27PM +0000, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> The NASA OS team is meeting this afternoon. Is there any update I can provide
> regarding the NOSA 2.0 certification?
> Bryan
> 
> Sent from Outlook
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM -0700, "Bryan Geurts" <superbag22 at hotmail.com>
> 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