[License-discuss] The pro se license constructor

[Pamela Chestek]

On 3/18/2019 9:21 PM, John Sullivan wrote:
> Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> writes:
>
>> 2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear
>> how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that
>> discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or
>> uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev mailing list.
> As one of the people who suggested something along these lines -- it
> helps with tracking because a document is developed during the
> conversation, and conversations can be expected to refer to the
> document. Revisions of the document are posted periodically with a
> standard subject line so that people who have not been able to track the
> discussion threads can jump in, see where things stand, and still
> contribute meaningfully.
>
> It doesn't help with the uncomfortable part.
>
> -john
>
Here's something to ponder - what if the license submitter was asked to
maintain the PEP.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190319/5dba8ba2/attachment.asc>