[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
pamela at chesteklegal.com
Thu Aug 27 03:29:35 UTC 2020
It was fairly clear when the Vaccine License was submitted that there
was something afoot, the question was what. But we get many requests to
approve licenses that aren't well-written or that on their face don't
meet the OSD. We don't really have a choice but to treat them all with
equal dignity, no matter what we think may be going on.
I am wary of not accepting anonymous licenses. I consider anonymity to
be an important right. This case demonstrates why: the pro-vaccine
position might subject one to negative consequences.
I was quite peeved when I learned this was a fake license and I agree it
was thoughtless and inappropriate to waste everyone's time. That said,
it's one time in as long as I can remember, so at the moment I don't see
it as something worth reacting to.
Pamela S. Chestek
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
On 8/25/2020 3:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * McCoy Smith:
>> 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?
> Quite a few people view such a requirement in a software license as
> DFSG-noncompliant. I think it would be a bit odd if OSI adopted such
> a requirement within its contribution process.
>> 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?
> Instead, you will have to review the provided identifying information
> and determine whether a proposal has genuine (business, community,
> artistic) interest behind it or not. I doubt that it would save much
> It also does not stop people from submitting time wasters under a
> real, government-issued identity.
>> [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]
> How are you going to enforce that?
> There's going to be an exception process, just like in the Vaccine
> License (but some egal certificate instead of a one issued by the
> 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
More information about the License-discuss