<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">In my opinion the retroactive removal of licenses as open source would not be a good idea. I would vote no.<div><br></div><div>“Deprecation” seems like the first step to removal.</div><div><br></div><div>Clarifying the current approval metrics may be more challenging but a better solution. Reviewing board minutes isn’t there some activity in this area?</div><div> </div><div>From the Fall 2017 Face to Face </div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">* Simon to develop "OSD License Review" FAQ</span></div><div>* <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Motion (Simon):</span> Approve Open Source and Standards Working Group Software</span><br><div><div><div><div><br></div><div>Also, if someone from OSI can point me to the current bylaws that would be appreciated. The 2013 one seems to indicate that the OSI has no members.</div><div><br><div id="AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Sep 28, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Brendan Hickey <<a href="mailto:brendan.m.hickey@gmail.com">brendan.m.hickey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto"><div><div style="font-family:sans-serif" dir="auto"><div class="m_-6663931603679250716elided-text"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 16:50 Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If you'd like a concrete proposal, take the offending<br>licenses off the list, or place them in a new, deprecated<br>subcategory, and publish a rationale for doing so. Or do<br>these things preliminarily, invite comment, and reassess.<br></blockquote></div></div><br>I think this is a great idea, though I don't have any proposals for licenses to put on the chopping block. At the most extreme I can imagine deprecating BSD-3 and one of BSD-2 or MIT/Expat.</div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 17:01 Kyle Mitchell <<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In the meantime, wouldn't the no-more-licenses faction<br>
prefer a more efficient path to rejection?<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As someone firmly in the non-proliferationist camp, I'm not sure our problem is efficiency. There just isn't a flood of well-formed, non-duplicative licenses. For every license debated on the merits (ex. UPL) there might be ten that can be rejected out of hand.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What are the downsides to being inefficient? We might chase off folks submitting bad licenses in earnest. This isn't a great experience. Perhaps this avoidable with a preflight checklist, or a more structured tracking system as others have suggested.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Brendan</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>License-review mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>