[License-review] AGPL historical approval discussions, license-steward-only submissions & OSI review of license drafts before submission. (was Re: Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1))

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

I wrote:
>> OSI took many months to decide about AGPL (November to March), and while
>> I don't think license committee discussion of that era are archived
>> publicly, I assume it was a complex topic for consideration ... [and]
>> Affero GPL had been promulgated in draft form for comment for years

Smith, McCoy replied:
> FWIW, the archives *do* exist.  From what I can tell, AGPLv3 was submitted
> in January 2008 and approved in March 2008
> (http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2008-January/000058.html
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2008-January/000058.html )

I would call those "meta-archives", not archives.  :) I read those linked
emails (and others) last night to confirm the November-to-March timeframe.

> practically lightning speed!

Note my email mentioned one long time period and two different sub-periods
within that.  The two sub-periods were: the period from AGPLv3's official
release to the approval (Nov-March), and the (much longer) drafting and
vetting discussions during the Affero clauses history that goes back to 2002
(explained further below).  OSI had nearly six years to consider the Affero
clause and was welcomed to contribute to it during much of that period.

In the case of MongoDB's license (a much more radical proposal than Affero),
OSI (apparently) had no access nor discussion with the drafters and no
public process was made available to OSI.  But that's AFAIK, so it's a
question worth asking: was any OSI decision-maker given the opportunity to
vet and comment on MongoDB's new license when it was still in draft form?


Meanwhile, Funambol was the official requestor of record for AGPLv3, but the
FSF had discussed the Affero clause with OSI leadership going back to 2002
when AGPLv1 was released.  (I remember that one personally, because I was
FSF's Executive Director at the time, and the FSF had discussions about
AGPLv1 with (at least) Larry Rosen, who was then OSI's legal counsel.)

AFAIK, AGPLv1 was never submitted to OSI.  The FSF decided to make Affero
clause discussions part of the GPLv3 process.  And during that process,
discussions with OSI were ongoing as there were OSI representatives on GPLv3
Discussion Committees A and B.

I was not very much involved in the GPLV3 process, but Affero GPLv3 was the
one part of the GPLv3 drafting process with which I was directly involved.
When FSF finalized AGPLv3 in November 2007, I urged the FSF to *not* submit
it themselves to OSI, because there was much talk in the community that OSI
did *not* want to accept licenses that weren't already in use.  I don't
recall exactly why I had that impression, but ISTR that it was rare (and
even considered suspect) at the time for license steward to submit their own
license.  (I suspect that was a response to the vanity license problems of
that era.)  Those of us that cared about AGPLv3 simply waited for someone
else to submit.  I recall that we were all excited that Funambol submitted
it, because it meant OSI would consider it officially.

These days, https://opensource.org/approval seems to indicate OSI prefers
the exact reverse of that: that license stewards, rather than license users,
should be the submitter of non-"legacy" licenses.  It's probably a good
change in policy, but it leaves me curious how OSI gauges the importance of
a particular license, since OSI's approval will ultimately grant legitimacy
to a license and its steward.  The /approval link subtly seems to assume
only established stewards, not neophyte ones, will submit licenses.

> There are threads that one can review in the Jan-Mar archives on AGPLv3
> that show what the discussion was at that time, 

Yes, I've read those threads, but Russ' approval email indicates there was
an off-list meeting where the license was discussed, which is what I was
referring to not being archived.

> if one is interested in this sort of history (as I am).

Did I miss the archives of minutes of that meeting, and could you send a
link?  I too would be very interested in the history.  (I don't see them on
https://opensource.org/minutes , which is where modern minutes from such
meetings are shared).
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn

Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/