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

[Jens Vagelpohl]

> On 7. Apr 2021, at 16:25 , Ben Ramsey <ben at benramsey.com> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
>> On Apr 7, 2021, at 05:59, Jens Vagelpohl <jens at netz.ooo> wrote:
>> 
>> I chose the terminology “legacy approval” because there was no other term that appeared to match the situation when I want to update an existing certified license that had been in use for many years. IMHO the existing OSI classification  for ZPL 2.0 as “non-reusable” is still valid and I didn’t intend to question that part.
>> 
>> Jens Vagelpohl
> 
> 
> This is the same way we handled the recent legacy approval of the PHP License 3.01.
> 
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html


Looks somewhat similar, correct. I’m not deep into licensing so I am not sure about McCoy’s note about unreusable vs. reusable or if that would make a difference for the approval process. I’m just trying to fix a 15 year old oversight ;-)

jens


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210407/53c30847/attachment.asc>