[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

Thu May 23 02:40:31 UTC 2019

Since I've only been participating on this list since about June of last
year, after a vacation of many years, I am surprised that nobody is calling
us to return to the good old days of the early 2018 license-discuss mailing
list. No, it's 2012, when I was participating, it seems. I pulled the June
2012 archives and saw these folks. Not a really large crowd, or many
unfamiliar faces. I suggest that you look at the archives and see if things
were really that different.

    Thanks

    Bruce

   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001776.html>
     *Karl Fogel*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001781.html>
     *Karl Fogel*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001777.html>
     *Thorsten Glaser*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001779.html>
     *Thorsten Glaser*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001783.html>
     *Rick Moen*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001784.html>
     *Rick Moen*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001775.html>
     *Love Nystrom*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001778.html>
     *Love Nystrom*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001780.html>
     *Love Nystrom*
   - [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
   LICENSE
   <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2012-June/001782.html>
     *Bruce Perens*

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:36 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
wrote:

> On 5/22/19, 10:06 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Richard Fontana" <
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of
> rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >    What concerned me, and I remember Carlo noting this as well, was the
> >    possibility that OSI, or l-r, would treat similar licenses differently
> >    based on varying sentimental attitudes toward the license submitter.
> >    Creative Commons, in those days perhaps even more than today, was
> >    viewed very positively in the open source community. (I feel that
> >    today there is more distance between the CC and open source
> >    communities.) The MXM license was associated with MPEG and more
> >    generally with the controversial topic of media codec patent
> >    licensing.
>
> ...
>
> >    At least from today's perspective, we saw the problem play out a
> >    couple of years later with the UPL submission. The hostile initial
> >    reaction to UPL, on l-r and elsewhere, was obviously connected to
> >    general community hostility towards Oracle, especially during that
> >    period.
>
> I would argue that Microsoft was even more disliked and MS-PL and MS-RL
> passed review with L-R consensus for approval despite the widespread
> distrust.
>
> For the most part I assume that everyone on L-R is acting in good faith
> and are likely more aware of their own biases than most.  From what I
> remember of the Microsoft discussion, folks were going out of their way to
> not simply reject it out of hand.
>
> UPL also passed and I seem to be quoting John a lot but here goes:
>
> "And yet OSI approved two Microsoft licenses.  I had a little bit to do
> with that, and I defended myself on both Groklaw and Reddit by saying that
> a license-writer's motives are irrelevant: what counts is the work."
>
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2014-April/002138.html
>
> >    So you've motivated me to say this: I think OSI should dispense with
> >    the whole idea that it should passively react to any supposed
> >    consensus that emerges from license-review. OSI has a responsibility
> >    to determine whether a license meets the OSD and provides software
> >    freedom regardless of what direction the l-r discussion is going in.
> >    One reason for this is the history of inconsistent attitudes on l-r
> >    towards submitted licenses based apparently on views of the license
> >    submitter.
>
> I would counter that the 2012 list was much more diverse and engaged than
> the 2019 list and could be again under the right stewardship.  If the 2019
> list lacks engagement I would say it's not because of the mailing list
> format but because of the perception that you and Bruce dominate the L-R
> list.
>
> We dance around this issue because nobody wants to get personal about
> things and understand that I do hold you and Bruce in the highest regard.
> But if we're doing honest root-cause analysis it must be at least
> examined.  You can also note that while I respect you guys that doesn't
> mean you two don't really piss me off from time to time.  But as I said, I
> assume everyone is acting in good faith and I generally don't look at their
> mailing address.  Most folks participating on L-R and L-D are open source
> proponents regardless of who they work for.
>
> Changing OSI policy is up to the OSI board...but I think it would be a
> premature action to dispense with the role of L-R and I believe that
> historically the L-R list has been quite successful in overcoming submitter
> bias.
>
> ObDis: Speaking only for myself.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190522/1ce0bd2c/attachment.html>