[License-review] Mandatory meta OSI process thread [was Re: Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)

[Richard Fontana]

Let's move this and other non-license-review-specific threads to
license-discuss so that license-review can focus on discussing
submitted licenses.

Richard




On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:24 PM Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>
> [Getting this out of the main SSPL thread, since this is mandatory process carping rather than anything specific to SSPL.]
>
> This is a public process, but relative to GPL/CC/MPL processes a very poor one along a variety of dimensions. It doesn't speak to the needs of particular communities, has (relatively few) lawyers and fewer end users on it, puts the onus on OSI rather than the license originator, is typically initiated *very* late in the drafting process (if at all). I could go on. So, definitely better than nothing, but as I've said for years it isn't a good substitute for a healthy, deliberative process run by the host/parent/authoring organization.
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:11 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Isn’t the license review process on this mailing list public, though?
>>
>> Seems as though there is a reasonable amount of criticism of drafting (or more broadly, raising of substantive legal issues or substantive OSD compliance issues) via the mailing list, and submitters who take that criticism to heart and respond, or alter their license in response have a higher success rate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Luis Villa
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:39 AM
>> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)
>>
>>
>>
>> I've long argued that OSI should formally require a public process, as a more objective replacement for the subjective "good drafting" requirement. But I'm pretty loath to tack it on as a requirement after the fact. (Consider this a particular example of my general distaste for "unwritten rules".)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:58 AM Richard Fontana <richard.fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:52:26PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>> > MongoDB had no public process for this license.  Experts in copyleft
>> > licensing were not asked for input before the license was officially
>> > released.  The OSI was (apparently) not included early in the drafting
>> > process as OSI has been when other copylefts (e.g., GPL, MPL).
>>
>> That is correct -- OSI was not involved prior to MongoDB, Inc.'s
>> public submission of the license.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org