[License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2017-10-24 16:10, Bruce Perens wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
> > A better approach would be to attempt to capture some of the unwrittten
> > criteria that the board uses (proliferation, drafting quality, etc.)
> >
>
> It's not actually unwritten. You can find volumes about it on this list.
> Just not codified.

For what it's worth, as someone undergoing this process in
the first person for the first time, I can't overstate how
helpful it is to have static webpages setting out the
Definition, the annotations, and the review process.

It would be quite a project to codify the license-review
archive's wisdom, especially without the ability to query
folks whose messages you can't be sure you read correctly.
But static pages on opensource.org would still say more,
having done all that.

For example, I've enjoyed going back-and-forth with a number
of folks on other-than-OSD issues for L0-R so far, but:

- People have their own way of talking about things, their
  own vocabulary and favorite examples.  For example, you
  and John Cowan speak about users of unmodified copies a
  little differently.  It's hard to keep straight.  When
  replies run in parallel, it's hard to juggle.

  A document like OSD speaks in a more unified voice.

- It isn't clear whose concerns, or what formulation of
  shared concerns, affects the review outcome.  Input isn't
  any less valuable for coming from someone who admits they
  don't speak for the board, but there is a practical
  difference.  When making revisions, I've sometimes
  wondered whether I'm running out of one policy fire into
  another.  Whether the former, the latter, both, or neither
  need dousing to proceed.

  An "approval criteria" page, approved by the board, would
  send a far clearer signal.

- I'm not sure current directors or license reviewers will
  feel all that bound by old conclusions, especially for
  particularly old ones.  A perfectly studied license-review
  historian might find themself ahead of the board, or
  behind it in the times.

Best,

K

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933