[License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
van.lindberg at gmail.com
Tue Feb 25 19:17:34 UTC 2020
I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
that should probably be decertified.
On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - even without
affirmative submission. Most of them will not be controversial. We want to
reach a world in which we have looked at all the source-available licenses
and made a determination as to their OSD conformance. This strengthens the
OSD as a tool for measuring licenses.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:59 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps
> <simon.phipps at opensource.org> wrote:
> > What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the same discussion-followed-by-committee-review process as
> approval. The decision to involuntarily deprecate a license would then
> finally be reviewed by the Board.
> +1. I'd personally prefer to see a process for outright
> decertification of licenses determined to be non-conformant to OSI's
> license approval criteria, as opposed to mere deprecation, but the few
> (I think) times I've brought this up over the years on this list there
> didn't seem to be much appetite for that from anyone else.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss