[triage] Re: For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Zak Greant]

Hej Russ, Greetings All,

On Oct 9, 2007, at 22:32PDT (CA), Russ Nelson wrote:
> David Abrahams writes:
>> Can someone who knows please tell us?  We had a professional (pro
>> bono) lawyer trying for months to get our license approved, and he
>> got no response from OSI.  It gives the impression of a catch-22:
>> they won't approve the license and they won't tell us what's
>> necessary in order to approve it.  As far as we can tell we
>> fulfilled all the publicly-visible written requirements.
>
> Many months, indeed.  Over a year ago (8/2006), you sent your approval
> request to license-approval at opensource.org.  There was a period of
> time after switching to the new site when there were two different
> approval processes available on the website.  This is the correct one:
>     http://opensource.org/approval
> and it includes directions to send a portion of the approval request
> to license-discuss.

Nothing to ticket here.

> Again, I have to point out that having a process, with definite steps,
> helps to ensure that licenses actually get approved.  People whinge
> about having to follow the steps, but they also whinge when their
> license doesn't get approved.  Winning is not a possibility here.

I'd like to ticket this now, but the relevant existing ticket is  
messy and I'm getting a bit tired from the constant triaging.

I'm dropping a note onto wiki page:

   https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/issues/license-approval-process

... so I can more easily finish triaging this broad issue later.

> Basically, yes, I saw the approval request, but because the public
> parts were never sent to license-discuss, I completely forgot about
> it.  If you wonder how I can completely forget about something, well,
> just ask my wife.  Happens all the time.

Nothing to ticket here.

> There is a growing realization on the board that the current
> technology for license approvals isn't working.  We plan to use some
> different technology, but we're not saying exactly what because we
> don't know yet.

Nothing to ticket here.

Cheers!
--zak