[License-review] Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval
Nigel T
nigel.2048 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 16:08:05 UTC 2017
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>
More information about the License-review
mailing list