[License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

[Christopher Sean Morrison]

>> If government lawyers believe they have a requirement for X and without X they won?t recommend open sourcing then providing them a license that provides X results in more open source code.  This is a good thing as long as X minimally meets the OSD.
> 
> This is where your logic fails, and thank you for summarizing it so
> well. Also, there is nothing particular about government needs in this
> statement.  Commercial actors use this exact justification for
> advancing their ideas of how open source should expand to meet their
> needs.

Thank you for restating the underlying disagreement on the same false pretense.  Governments are subject to a plethora of different regulations and laws than commercial actors.  To claim or presume there are no requirements unique to Government seems quite fallacious.

I won’t rehash NOSA specifics as the archives do that better, but I recall there being valid points on both sides of an impasse that was not likely to be legally tested anytime soon.

> Yes, but you don't need to bring up the same disagreement every other
> month. Trust me, it has already been noted!

As another noted, hitting the delete key should be preferable to squelching voices and participation.

> License-review exists to review new license proposals. You try to
> divert every new review back to a re-litigation of the NASA proposal.
> This is off topic and also very annoying. It is wrong toward the
> steward submitting the new license.

Despite being hyperbole that is demonstrably untrue, his reply was to a thread about the license review process itself.  In that context, consideration of past license reviews that were ostensibly process failures seems quite apropos.

Cheers!
Sean