[License-review] META: license review tracking (was Re: Outstanding license submissions)
fontana at opensource.org
Thu Feb 4 15:58:15 UTC 2016
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:23:17PM -0500, Christopher Sean Morrison wrote:
> Apologies for the resend. Less html this time.
> The outstanding license submissions updates are a *really* useful reminder,
Yes, my bad for not keeping up with that after an initial effort.
> but submissions like NOSA repeatedly fail to progress with only
> informal on-inquiry status updates. I think it would be helpful for
> this group to establish (or update/enforce if one exists) a social
> contract so license submitters have some expectation of activity or
> response that is respectful of the process, the reviewers, and the
I basically agree with that. I would just say that, without in any way
excusing the continued delay surrounding NOSA 2.0 (entirely my fault
apart from the inherent complexity of the license), I believe NOSA 2.0
is a unique case.
> A couple years ago at the OSI summit in DC, I think it was Patrick
> that announced proposals could be submitted to OSI to fund
> infrastructure projects. Perhaps this should be utilized, to ensure
> license review infrastructure actually gets set up. I'd be happy to
> champion a write-up -- progress really needs to be more consistent.
I don't think the issue with NOSA 2.0 is really an *infrastructure*
issue, except in that mailing list discussion may be an insufficiently
suitable form of scrutiny of a relatively complex license like NOSA
> Looking at the Fall 2015 face-to-face meeting minutes, there was an
> unassigned action to follow up with some offer from GitHub. No
> update in the December meeting. What was the nature of GitHub's
> offer? Is progress being made?
Offhand I don't recall what this was but I'll check the minutes and
More information about the License-review