[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
andrew.dema at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 17:04:10 UTC 2020
I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI
License to exist which fills a need not addressed by previously approved
licenses. This should deal with this kind of issue and other licenses that
are merely a rebranded form of another license. I only wish to point out
that the OSI be careful when trying to qualify what counts as a legal
person they worked with as this could harshly affect some people's ability
to participate/problem solve issues specific to their country if the
definition is too exact. (some countries may have exceptionally few people
that deal specifically in the idea of software licensing or deal with it at
all and specific wording requiring the person to be a Lawyer specialising
in software licensing would put an undue burden on them to be represented).
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 12:31 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> In view of the fact that the OSI is going to be forming a committee to
> review the process:
> 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
> 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]
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss