<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Did they ever answer your very first question?<div><br></div><div>Namely whether they have permission to use GPL as the basis for the SSPL at all? </div><div><br></div><div>If not then it’s simply DOA. </div><div><br></div><div>I guess that also applies to 0BSD as well. If there is no permission from the ISC to use the ISC license text as the basis for any variations then the naming is immaterial. </div><div><br></div><div>Presumably that’s covered somewhere given how long it’s been around and may have been explicitly covered in an email I missed.<br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On Oct 19, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com">bruce@perens.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">I am waiting for the license drafter to respond constructively regarding fixing the obvious problems. I spoke with Mongo's lawyer, but that doesn't mean the lawyer will be directed to engage. Without that sort of engagement IMO rejection is inevitable.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Bruce</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 16:40 Nigel T <<a href="mailto:nigel.2048@gmail.com">nigel.2048@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">It's been recommended/suggested that we defer discussion of this particular license as it should be part of a larger discussion regarding the expansion of copyleft. Hopefully I characterized that correctly.<div><br></div><div>Are we tabling discussing this license and moving to license-discuss or just proceeding? It seems like someone should clarify what the OSI board would prefer to do in these kinds of circumstances (also rather rare).</div><div><br></div><div>It would, however, be moderately unfair to the submitter to shift this to license-discuss with no real guidance on when or if any decision should emerge. Presumably we shouldn't spend years on it but may want far more than the recommended 60 days. I also don't see how to evaluate SSPL without discussions that are likely to end up far afield of the specifics of the license itself.</div><div><br></div><div>For me it's a bridge too far but there are potentially many licenses that meet the OSD and would be valuable to a part of the Open Source community that I would never likely want to use or advocate for. Also, if the assertion is that we should be evaluating SSPL adherence to the OSD based on a free software perspective vs an open source perspective then reviewers on this list should be made aware of that. Until then I will view submissions from an open source perspective.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:41 PM Simon Phipps <<a href="mailto:webmink@opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">webmink@opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">This list is called license-review. It is for reviewing licenses. We are going to do that here. Please move all other discussions related to licensing to license-discuss.<div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Simon</div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_4194703993625313250m_7953181525447958849gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Simon Phipps<i>, President, The Open Source Initiative</i></span><br style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><font color="#1155cc">www.o</font>pensource.org</a></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><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></body></html>