[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017
josh at postgresql.org
Mon Jan 9 17:48:59 UTC 2017
On 01/09/2017 09:00 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:38:24AM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
>>> 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
>>> approval category).
>> I think we need to introduce that topic. I don't know if you missed it,
>> but this license is *already being used* for an assortment of
>> Chinese-language projects with substantial numbers of users. So if
>> there's any way to do legacy approval, I think we should.
> I guess the basic issue is how much of a lower standard should we
> apply to legacy approval licenses. Clearly the license still has to be
> considered to conform to the OSD.
Right, which is why a very relevant question is *can* the submitter
remove the badgeware clauses?
More information about the License-review