[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017
fontana at opensource.org
Mon Jan 9 16:35:28 UTC 2017
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:08:26AM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 01/08/2017 07:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Zentao Public License
> > =====================
> > Submission:
> > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-June/002800.html
> > Comments: Submission did not fully follow approval
> > requirements. Substantive discussion focused on the badgeware issue;
> > some suggested that legacy approval might be a more appropriate
> > path.
> > Recommendation: Reject.
> Why is it "reject" if we're recommending legacy approval? This doesn't
> make any sense.
Legacy approval was recommended casually by one or two people. Maybe I
shouldn't have even bothered to note that in the 'Comments'. I am not
sure that recommendation itself made that much sense given that many
people (yourself included I think) were saying that perhaps OSI just
shouldn't approve any badgeware licenses going forward. I am inclined
to agree with that policy but I believe it should apply across the
board including to legacy approval licenses.
The license submitter himself or herself did not submit the license
for legacy approval. Resubmission for legacy approval is a possibility
(though I am not sure if legacy approval is really an appropriate
category here -- I don't think this was really explored thoroughly; my
sense is this license would not fit the intended use of the legacy
> > Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0)
> > =============================================
> > Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-October/002856.html
> > Comments: Questions were raised about conformance with the
> > nondiscrimination policy of OSD 5. It was suggested that the license
> > be redrafted so that all downstream modifications are licensed under
> > the Apache License 2.0 (rather than just upstream licensors receiving
> > a copy under the Apache License 2.0).
> > Recommendation: At request of license submitter and others, OSI to
> > provide general guidance by commenting on whether a license that
> > privileges one class of licensees by giving it greater permissions
> > relative to other licensees conflicts with OSD or should be
> > discouraged or disapproved for non-OSD policy reasons.
> Again, there was follow-up on this where we suggested an improvement to
> the structure of this language, and the submitter was waiting on
> feedback from the committee that that improvement would make it more
> acceptable. They never got it.
> --Josh Berkus
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review