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

[VanL]

That is a fair concern, but I think it could be mitigated. As a threshold
matter, the licenses I look at as being possibly worthy of
de-classification don't seem to be wisely used. For those few affected,
there could be a deprecation period, and some of them could be revised.

Thanks,
Van

__________________________
Van Lindberg
van.lindberg at gmail.com
m: 214.364.7985

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 8:28 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:

> 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>
> <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
>> *>>From:* License-review <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>
>> *>>Cc:* License submissions for OSI review <
>> 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
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200208/50642cb6/attachment.html>