[License-discuss] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

[Pamela Chestek]

As suggested, moving to license-discuss.

My concern with delisting is that someone will have relied on the 
approval and it would be unfair, and a bad look for OSI, to suddenly 
pull the rug out.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
pamela at chesteklegal.com
919-800-8033
www.chesteklegal.com

On 2/7/20 5:04 PM, VanL wrote:

> With the mild proviso that this discussion really should be on 
> license-discuss, I also think a deprecation committee is a great idea.
>
> - Van
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
>     *>>From:* License-review
>     <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org>> *On Behalf
>     Of *Richard Fontana
>     *>>Sent:* Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM
>     *>>To:* Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com <mailto:eric at wwahammy.com>>
>     *>>Cc:* License submissions for OSI review
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:license-review at lists.opensource.org>>
>     *>>Subject:* Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic
>     Autonomy License (Beta 4)
>
>     >>I agree with this. I would feel better if the OSI had some process
>     for reviewing and potentially delisting or at least deprecating
>     approved licenses based on problematic experiences with a
>     >>license that were not foreseeable at the time of approval.
>
>     >>Richard
>
>     I second the idea of a License Deprecation Committee, a la the
>     License Proliferation Committee of ’04.  In fact, you could make
>     it a License Proliferation and Deprecation Committee to address
>     both issues (assuming there are people who believe license
>     proliferation is now a problem).
>
>     Given that there have been existing licenses on the list that have
>     been argued as precedent for recent submissions which were
>     rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought to be a serious look
>     at some of the historical approvals to test whether those
>     approvals would survive under current standards.  I can think of
>     at least one license currently on the list which I’ve looked at
>     recently where I can’t justify it as consistent with the OSD (or
>     at least my understanding thereof) or the approval process as
>     currently run.  That’s not a situation that I believe ought to
>     exist and can play into the perception that OSI approval is
>     inconsistent and/or arbitrary.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-review mailing list
>     License-review at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200208/d3387671/attachment.html>