[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
mccoy at lexpan.law
Tue Aug 25 16:10:28 UTC 2020
In view of the fact that the OSI is going to be forming a committee to
review the process:
e+List+Working+Group/, here's one thing to consider:
In late 2019, a submission was made to approve the "Vaccine License":
The submission purported to satisfy all the criteria required for a
submission (listed here: https://opensource.org/approval), stated that it
had undergone legal review and "was prepared by a licensing professional."
It was filed by "Filli Liberandum," which almost certainly is a pseudonym.
The commenters on this submission pointed out the license did not meet the
OSD, and it was rather quickly rejected by the Board:
It turns out that the author of this license was Bruce Perens, who now
admits it was "a joke" and a "test"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTsc1m78BUk (scroll forward to 44:00). He
even responded (using his real name and e-mail account) to the
License-Review thread, suggesting that the license that he drafted (and most
likely also submitted under a pseudonym) not be approved:
Might it be time to require license submitters to actually identify
themselves, the organization they represent, and the name of the legal
person they worked with in creating and submitting the license?
I know this was a minor blip in the process, but isn't the all-volunteer
Board busy enough that they shouldn't have to go through the motions of
convening a meeting and scheduling a vote on someone's joke proposal?
[I'd also suggest that people caught doing these sorts of non-serious or
pseudonymous submissions not have the right to submit or comment on the
mailing lists in the future]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4938 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss