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

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Sat Jun 29 18:34:13 UTC 2019

At Pixar, I learned how easy it was for people to criticize our work, how
very many critics there were, and how few people are actually able to make
good feature film. The situation here is analogous. While there are many
people who express exasperation over perceived problems in OSI's function,
only a handful seem to be actually inclined to do the work. Entering a +1
somewhere is not doing the work and *provides no accounting of what
thought, if any, went into that vote.* Staying in the wings for an entire
license discussion as contentious as CAL isn't doing the work. Discussion
is the only way to prove that you have an opinion with *thought and
understanding behind it.*



On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:57 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>

> On 6/28/19 11:33 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't understand how "silence means agreement" can be a meaningful way
> to understand a community's views. Assume there are 100 people, 99 of
> which are in agreement and 1 who holds the opposite view. One person
> expresses the view of the 99 and the one person with the opposite view
> expresses the contrary view. The 98 don't say anything because their
> view has been expressed, but to an outsider it looks like no agreement
> whatsoever. "Silence means agreement" can only be true if only one
> opinion has been stated.
> These are also not questions that are as easy as yes/no. And the goal is
> consensus, not majority rule. What I find informative and helpful is
> where people give their reasons about why they share the view, or
> explain why the opposite view is poorly conceived. Which might change
> minds and aid in reaching consensus.
> >
> > 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.
> Fair enough, but the OSI needs to do better than that. There has been a
> lot of criticism of OSI for not explaining its reasoning for its
> decisions, and the absence of any explanation doesn't help the license
> submitter if they are just left to guess at what needs to change for a
> revised version to be accepted.
> Pam
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190629/79cf4dff/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list