[License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11
x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com
Mon Feb 15 01:44:02 UTC 2021
I would like to apologize, but it seems some of my responses are getting
directed to peoples' emails, instead of the board, even though I've been
using the "reply" button. If you received any emails directly from me, my
apologies. I don't know why some of my emails are doing this, when others
aren't. I'm new to email boards, and thought reply would send them to "
license-review at lists.opensource.org". I'm going through my responses trying
to find which ones need to be re-sent to the correct address. This is one
such message below. Hopefully it ends up in the right place.
I've read enough previous reviews on here to know that some members feel
strongly that licenses should require legal review before they can be
submitted for review, but presently it's not a requirement. So my
submission has just as might right to be reviewed here as any other. Should
this review reject my application on the basis of lack of legal review,
that would be understandable, as it's a valid concern with my (or any)
license. However, legal review is one of many characteristics a license can
have, that make it worth approval. While my license lacks legal review it
brings other qualities to the table, as outlined in my original post.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> On 2/13/21 4:30 PM, J. Ritchey wrote:
> > Legal review:
> > No legal review of this license has been done. None is planned.
> Given this statement, why would we take this license submission seriously?
> This is like submitting a PR to someone else's repository with the
> commit message "I didn't do any tests or use any linting tools". That's
> an automatic rejection in most OSS projects I know, and I don't see why
> this submission should be any different.
> Now, if you were looking for legal assistance crafting a license that
> resolves what you perceive to be the deficiencies in BSD/MIT, that would
> be one thing. But you appear to believe that you don't need legal
> -1 from me, propose immediate rejection without further discussion.
> Josh Berkus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review