[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

Pamela Chestek pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Thu Aug 27 13:38:27 UTC 2020

I will also add that the OSI learned this information fairly shortly 
after the license was rejected. The OSI considered the submission a Code 
of Conduct violation and addressed it directly with Bruce.


Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 8/26/2020 11:29 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> 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.
> Pam
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> (919) 800-8033
> 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
>> time.
>> 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
>> doctor).
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org 

More information about the License-discuss mailing list