[License-review] For Legacy Approval: Zope Public License v2.1

[Richard Fontana]

Oh, the other thing that's somewhat confusing is that there are two
different sets of categories. There is the "approval" category (the "type
of submission") and there is the "license proliferation" category. "Legacy
approval" is a type of submission; non-reusable is a license proliferation
category.


On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:56 AM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:

> This confused me in the past, but the OSI's view of "legacy approval"
> is given here:
> https://opensource.org/approval#legacy-approval
>
> "Retroactive approval of historic/legacy licenses that have already
> been extensively used by an existing community, but have not
> previously been approved."
>
> So "legacy" does not indicate "no longer in active use", but the
> description uses "historic/legacy" without explaining what that means.
> I think there is something problematic here, both in that
> "historic/legacy" gives the impression of "no longer actively used",
> and also in suggesting that what's normal is to have approval of
> brand-new licenses (which I think is an implied view of the OSI that
> has led to some problems such as the tendency for people to submit
> so-called "crayon" licenses and licenses that are otherwise
> foreseeably unlikely to be widely adopted).
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:13 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a reason Zope 2.1 should be listed as 'legacy' and not as a
> > 'non-reusable' license as Zope 2.0 is currently listed? It's still in
> > active use, so it doesn't seem like it should be listed as 'legacy'.
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:27 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/6/21 5:52 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't ZPL2.0 also be listed as superseded if this latest version
> is a replacement for it?
> > >
> > > Presumably, yes.
> > >
> > > +1 to do that, and +1 to approve Zope 2.1
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Berkus
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> > >
> > > License-review mailing list
> > > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> >
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210407/5d681f8d/attachment.html>