[License-review] veto against Unlicense

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Sun May 17 14:09:40 UTC 2020

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 6:59 AM
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] veto against Unlicense
> This does bring up a question. The submission asked for placement in the
> "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities"
> category. I don't think that category is correct given that a dedication
to the
> public domain, not licensing, is the primary goal. There aren't any other
> appropriate categories that I see, so I would then default to
Yeah, as someone who was on the license proliferation committee when this
categorization was formulated (and which was very highly debated both within
that committee and by the mailing lists when it was proposed), I'd say that
*no* new license (other than updates of licenses on that list, like
EPLv1.0->EPLv2.0) should be proposed to be slotted into that category upon
submission.  In fact, I think there should be a separate board vote to
either place a license into that category, or to take one off of it, given
that that category was intended to really reflect the gold standard licenses
that really have gotten widespread adoption across many many projects over a
long time.

More information about the License-review mailing list