[License-discuss] discussion of L-R process [was Re: [License-review] Approval: Server Side Public License, Version 2 (SSPL v2)]
bruce at perens.com
Fri Mar 15 18:38:53 UTC 2019
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:14 AM Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
> I was not one of those people... because I had tuned out this thread some
> time ago, since it looked to have degenerated into a screaming match.
Maybe you aren't talking about me, but I'm really at a loss coming up with
when I've screamed at anyone in this process. I did forcefully say that
someone's proposal did not satisfy the existing objections. And I am hardly
the one to criticize people simply for being in business.
> I'm not sure I would go this far? But I would critically say that the
> current "process", such as it is, permits no way for an outsider to make a
> reasonable determination of the quality of the process, or to join
> constructively in the process.
I joined the license-review list during the discussion of Kyle's license
submission. That was a year ago, after a 10-year absence. Although I
obviously have a history, there was no barrier to entry. For much of OSI's
existence I have been persona non grata to the board. This did not block me
from participating in license review during that period up to 11 years ago.
And of course mailing lists, as a technology, encourage discussions that
> look like screaming matches: only the bluntest of moderation tools; poor
> search; no way to quietly "+1"; etc., etc, etc.
Straw polls are useful, but aren't really contribution to the discussion.
You have to actually discuss. Also, ballot box stuffing is all too easy to
do. If you haven't noticed, OSI already gets ballot-box stuffed on one
issue. This is not an objection to different discussion systems, but I
don't feel that we should base the process too heavily on passive
participation such as +1's.
I'd happily submit the Blue Oak Model permissive license
You need a license that is actually contentious to be a test. Blue Oak is a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss