[License-review] moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]

[Allison Randal]

Hi Kyle,

I think you're mixing up a couple of unrelated issues here, so I'll try
to separate them:

a) The board has been slow at reviewing licenses for years now. We know
it's a problem and have made multiple attempts to fix that problem, but
so far none of those attempts have actually changed much. It
fundamentally comes down to the problem that people get elected to the
board because they're well known for doing things in open source, but
that means that all the board members are very busy volunteers.  We'll
keep trying to improve.

b) The board does take all commentary by this mailing list very
seriously, because the collective expertise on open source licensing and
law on this mailing list is deeply impressive, and the perspectives
shared here are an important part of shaping the future of open source.
It would be foolish to ignore the contributions of the participants
here. That doesn't mean this mailing list is the deciding body on
whether to approve a license. The board has a legal responsibility to
uphold the mission of the OSI, including the OSD and the license
approval process, so the ultimate decision on whether to approve a
license is a decision of the board. There have been past instances where
the board approved a license even though well-respected members of the
open source community on this mailing list objected to it. You may get a
lot of people telling you a lot of different (contradictory) things, but
the final review by the board is the only thing that can tell you
whether the license is approved.


I understand the review process has been frustrating for you, and I'll
be the first to admit it isn't perfect. Humans are a rowdy lot, and
bringing them together in large groups can seem like chaos. But, one
thing open source and free software have demonstrated is that chaotic,
rowdy groups of humans can accomplish amazing things together, even
despite (and sometimes because of) all their imperfections. Please be
patient with us, but persistent. I promise you will get an answer.

Allison

On 06/19/2018 04:12 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> Allison,
> 
> Thanks again for taking time.  And for offering clarity.
> 
> There was lively debate on L0-R's OSD conformance, but most
> controversy focused on broader policy concerns.  I read
> repeatedly that policy would prevail: that OSI would not
> approve, even if the license were OSD-conformant, even if it
> had approved licenses with comparable features before.  By
> sheer endurance---many characters were typed---and some
> perseverance---the list went down for a spell---the group
> did manage two waves of focused comment directly on OSD.  But
> overall, policy stalked conformance and vice-versa, making
> each conversation much harder to have.
> 
> If the board waits for list consensus on both policy and
> conformance before taking up a license itself, then reviews
> just conformance, the board has delegated policy to this
> list. OSD conformance for novel, non-proliferating licenses
> won't be settled, practically, since the board does that,
> and the board won't reach past policy objections.
> 
> If that's the case, I understand why requests for OSI
> statements or other clarifications of policy criteria don't
> compute.  Those statements would have to come from the
> board, but the board doesn't _do_ policy.  The only
> exception is nonproliferation.
> 
> If that's the case, conversely, personal policy statements
> like Bruce's make perfect sense.  Trouble is, they needn't
> be compatible, one to another.  Any hard-line position
> against approving new licenses generally won't be, by
> definition.  That turns "consensus" into "attrition".
> Anyone capable of staying civil and willing to hold a
> personal line indefinitely can run any submission out of
> steam, landing it in unresolved license-review purgatory.
>