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

[VanL]

Widely. Autocorrect fail.

But the danger, or damage, is in how the body of licenses affect the
interpretation of the OSD.

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

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 10:55 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
wrote:

> Wisely or widely?
>
> Agree re "widely." Which also means that leaving them alone will also have
> little impact.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602pamela at chesteklegal.com
> 919-800-8033www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On 2/8/20 9:38 AM, VanL wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_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/fdf1f5e9/attachment-0003.html>