[License-review] For Approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Fri Jun 28 19:26:01 UTC 2019

If you'd like to put up a prototype, I'd be happy to try it.



On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 8:33 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> Bruce, Pamela:
> >> One of the main reasons given by the committee is that there was
> >> /insufficient discussion/ on license-review. In your message
> >> <8d5fb3a8-86f5-89fa-4f3e-1ac5978af3b1 at opensource.org
> >> <mailto:8d5fb3a8-86f5-89fa-4f3e-1ac5978af3b1 at opensource.org>>, of Fri,
> >> May 10, 5:51 PM you wrote "Thank you very much, your opinions have
> >> been noted", which I took as the chair's  direction for me to
> >> terminate discussion of the license. This is ironic given the response
> >> of the committee.
> > One person stating the same point over and over again doesn't indicate
> > anything.  We need more diversity of opinion, or at least more voices
> > with the same opinion so that we know the opinion is commonly held.
> Not sure about that; this list is noisy enough that I think most of us
> hold back if we agree with an already-stated viewpoint.  If you really
> want to get a straw poll of agreement, it would be far better to have a
> tool that let us vote up/down critiques of proposed licenses than wait
> for "me, too" posts on a mailing list.
> For my part, the CAL already had enough substantial objections to it
> recorded that it didn't feel like it needed any further discussion. I
> mean, if the engine is on fire, I'm not gonna check the tires for air.
> >> Of course, we would also have more discussion if additional
> >> well-informed people with a diversity of opinions actually joined the
> >> list. Which I believe was the intent of the restructuring of the
> >> license committee. But I don't see them yet. Until we find a way to
> >> persuade them to show up, a temporary fix might be for the OSI board
> >> to become more active participants on this list.
> > It's only been a month or two. It will take time.
> Again, switching away from a freeform mailing list to some form of more
> structured markup (such as an issue tracker, VCS, or document
> collaboration platform) is the only way you're going to get broader
> participation.  This list is currently limited to the tiny slice of
> folks who have both the time and the motivation to read all of it.  If I
> wasn't able to spend work time here, I couldn't contribute either.
> And "restructuring" that you attempt to do that keeps L-R as purely a
> freeform list is going to be completely futile, and you're better off
> not bothering.
> --
> Josh Berkus
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190628/569410a1/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list