<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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><b>>>From:</b> License-review <license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Fontana<br><b>>>Sent:</b> Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM<br><b>>>To:</b> Eric Schultz <eric@wwahammy.com><br><b>>>Cc:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>>>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>>>I agree with this. I would feel better if the OSI had some process for reviewing and potentially delisting or at least deprecating approved licenses based on problematic experiences with a >>license that were not foreseeable at the time of approval. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>>>Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I second the idea of a License Deprecation Committee, a la the License Proliferation Committee of ’04. In fact, you could make it a License Proliferation and Deprecation Committee to address both issues (assuming there are people who believe license proliferation is now a problem).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Given that there have been existing licenses on the list that have been argued as precedent for recent submissions which were rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought to be a serious look at some of the historical approvals to test whether those approvals would survive under current standards. I can think of at least one license currently on the list which I’ve looked at recently where I can’t justify it as consistent with the OSD (or at least my understanding thereof) or the approval process as currently run. That’s not a situation that I believe ought to exist and can play into the perception that OSI approval is inconsistent and/or arbitrary.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>