<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Isn’t the license review process on this mailing list public, though?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Seems as though there is a reasonable amount of criticism of drafting (or more broadly, raising of substantive legal issues or substantive OSD compliance issues)
via the mailing list, and submitters who take that criticism to heart and respond, or alter their license in response have a higher success rate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_____replyseparator"></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Luis Villa<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 1 (SSPL v1)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I've long argued that OSI should formally require a public process, as a more objective replacement for the subjective "good drafting" requirement. But I'm pretty loath to tack it on as a requirement after the fact. (Consider this a particular
example of my general distaste for "unwritten rules".)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 9:58 AM Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:richard.fontana@opensource.org">richard.fontana@opensource.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:52:26PM -0700, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:<br>
> MongoDB had no public process for this license. Experts in copyleft<br>
> licensing were not asked for input before the license was officially<br>
> released. The OSI was (apparently) not included early in the drafting<br>
> process as OSI has been when other copylefts (e.g., GPL, MPL).<br>
<br>
That is correct -- OSI was not involved prior to MongoDB, Inc.'s<br>
public submission of the license. <br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>