<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Thanks, Richard, for the quick reply. So what is the next step?<br>Bryan<br><br>> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:28:24 -0400<br>> From: fontana@sharpeleven.org<br>> To: license-review@opensource.org<br>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions<br>> <br>> Hi Bryan,<br>> <br>> I recently posted an update on several of the licenses that have been<br>> submitted for review, including NOSA 2.0:<br>> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-September/001144.html<br>> <br>> First let me personally apologize for the amount of time that has<br>> passed since you first submitted NOSA 2.0 for approval. It's highly<br>> likely that if I had just kept my mouth shut NOSA 2.0 would have been<br>> approved in November 2013 following Luis Villa's recommendation.<br>> <br>> Just speaking for myself here: I believe NOSA 2.0 is salvageable but I<br>> feel it may need some nontrivial revisions to reach the point where I<br>> personally would recommend it for OSI approval. For a potential open<br>> source license it is so complex that I just don't know if mailing list<br>> discussion is an adequate basis of review and analysis. Yet that is<br>> also the only good way (given the present state of review tools) to<br>> get community feedback on the license.<br>> <br>> I'm really close to being tempted to suggest passing redlines back and<br>> forth (which particularly pains me as the non-famous author of the<br>> Harvey Birdman Rule).<br>> <br>> Richard<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 01:36:38PM -0600, Bryan Geurts wrote:<br>> > Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet? We at NASA continue<br>> > to anxiously await approval. If I remember correctly, we first submitted it<br>> > for approval about two years ago.<br>> > <br>> > Bryan Geurts<br>> > <br>> > > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400<br>> > > From: fontana@opensource.org<br>> > > To: license-review@opensource.org<br>> > > Subject: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions<br>> > ><br>> > > 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 opensource.org, 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>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/<br>> > 000072.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Svoboda<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html<br>> > ><br>> > > No Nonsense Open Source License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html<br>> > ><br>> > > APL AROS Public License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Symisc Public License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/<br>> > 000484.html<br>> > ><br>> > > "BSD-based anti-patent license"<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/<br>> > 000522.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/<br>> > 000547.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Public Software License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/<br>> > 000750.html<br>> > ><br>> > > Russian Permissive Free Software License<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/<br>> > 000758.html<br>> > ><br>> > > eCos License version 2.0<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/<br>> > 000853.html<br>> > ><br>> > > GG License 1.0<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/<br>> > 000968.html<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 http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/<br>> > 000733.html )<br>> > ><br>> > > Zope Public License 2.1<br>> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html<br>> > ><br>> > > wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)<br>> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html<br>> > ><br>> > > W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)<br>> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834<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>> > > License-review@opensource.org<br>> > > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review<br>> <br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > License-review mailing list<br>> > License-review@opensource.org<br>> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review<br>> <br> </div></body>
</html>