<div dir="ltr"><div>Note that the W3C has recently published a new 'Software and Document License' which supersedes previous licenses and will be used for licensing software, and specifications that the W3C wishes to publish under a permissive license.<br><br></div>The license can be found here:<br><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document">http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document</a><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Richard Fontana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fontana@opensource.org" target="_blank">fontana@opensource.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi license-review,<br>
<br>
There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval<br>
that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is<br>
debatable.<br>
<br>
1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source<br>
Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in<br>
fact).<br>
<br>
I intend to post something separately about this one.<br>
<br>
<br>
2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the<br>
point of this list's hosting on <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a>, i.e. late 2011). I<br>
believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for<br>
OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally<br>
lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was<br>
acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I<br>
believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,<br>
particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a<br>
troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is<br>
likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,<br>
say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.<br>
<br>
Forget Me Not License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000072.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000072.html</a><br>
<br>
Svoboda<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html</a><br>
<br>
No Nonsense Open Source License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html</a><br>
<br>
APL AROS Public License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html</a><br>
<br>
Symisc Public License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/000484.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/000484.html</a><br>
<br>
"BSD-based anti-patent license"<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/000522.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/000522.html</a><br>
<br>
Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000547.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/000547.html</a><br>
<br>
Public Software License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000750.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000750.html</a><br>
<br>
Russian Permissive Free Software License<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000758.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/000758.html</a><br>
<br>
eCos License version 2.0<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html</a><br>
<br>
GG License 1.0<br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/000968.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/000968.html</a><br>
<br>
I am not including here license submissions that I believe it is<br>
fairly clear were withdrawn from consideration by the submitter.<br>
<br>
You might argue that several of these were not really worth extensive<br>
review, but a clear decision ought to have been made nonetheless, and<br>
in any case that view can't apply to *all* of the license submissions<br>
in this set.<br>
<br>
<br>
3. Really Old license submissions found by Engel Nyst:<br>
(see <a href="http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/000733.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/000733.html</a> )<br>
<br>
Zope Public License 2.1<br>
<a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html</a><br>
<br>
wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)<br>
<a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html</a><br>
<br>
W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)<br>
<a href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I am not sure how exhaustive Engel Nyst's research was but I have to<br>
wonder whether there were other lost license approval requests from<br>
the 2005-2011 period.<br>
<br>
I am not sure what if anything we should do about all of these, other<br>
than NOSA 2.0 which clearly requires a decision by the board for the<br>
very patient Mr. Geurts. If perchance anyone reading this was<br>
associated with one of the listed license submissions, by all means<br>
please indicate whether you wish to revive review of the license in<br>
question.<br>
<br>
Is there anything we should do to take better care of license approval<br>
submissions? It was suggested a while back that we consider using an<br>
issue tracker for all license approval requests.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>