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

[Molly de Blanc]

It's been suggested to have a sort of "Emeritus" license list in the past,
which won't invalidate them as part of the open source license ecosystem,
but instead clarify that they are generally not recommended for active use.

Cheers,
M.

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 2:31 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200208/3f86bd82/attachment.html>