[License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval

[Nigel T]

Sorry I drafted a new submission Friday and forgot to hit send. :)

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
wrote:

> Nigel, I believe this is your last draft:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-
> February/002980.html
> Note: the title is not consistent ("Compatible" vs. "Compatibility") and
> you have "Derivative Work" where perhaps you want "Derivative Works".
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, at 09:41 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > Yes, that would be good.  I’ll put the new text into a formal application
> > for you.
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > On 3/29/17, 5:56 PM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
> > <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
> > fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Nigel,
> >
> >     Looks like I did not respond to this question. The next OSI board
> >     meeting is next week. Do you want to submit the revised UCL for
> >     approval? If so I will recommend approval and I am fairly confident
> >     that
> >     a decision of some sort can be reached at the meeting.
> >
> >     Richard
> >
> >     On Thu, Feb 23, 2017, at 09:41 PM, Nigel T wrote:
> >     > Richard,
> >     >
> >     > When is the next board meeting? Thanks!
> >     >
> >     > Nigel
> >     >
> >     > > On Feb 23, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Richard Fontana <
> fontana at sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> >     > >
> >     > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:40:44PM -0500, Nigel T wrote:
> >     > >>
> >     > >> The complete text of the updated license is below.  Let me know
> if this
> >     > >> does not address the comments provided in the earlier
> discussion.  If it
> >     > >> does then I will repackage the submission and have it ready for
> the board
> >     > >> to vote on.
> >     > >
> >     > > It certainly reduces the earlier basis for objection on the
> grounds of
> >     > > "asymmetry" though doesn't eliminate it entirely. Also as I
> think you
> >     > > have pointed out (and something I am still struggling with)
> maybe we
> >     > > should be applying a more lenient standard to "special purpose"
> >     > > licenses. But I am curious to hear other reactions.
> >     > >
> >     > > Richard
> >     > >
> >     > > _______________________________________________
> >     > > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170403/d55741aa/attachment.html>