[License-review] License drafting quality and process [was Re: Comment on MOSL and similar licenses]

[Luis Villa]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Clark C. Evans <cce at clarkevans.com> wrote:
> What if the "discussion" part of the process were mandatory  -- the
> first step would be a "need" validation on license-discuss by posting a
> synopsis that outlines the "real world" licensing problem being
> addressed and why other licenses are inadequate.
>
> The discussion could then be focused on validating if this "need" is
> consistent with the vision of the OSI.   If so, then the participant
> could be *invited* to submit their license design and perhaps even
> official legally prepared license text to license-review.

I'm not terribly excited about having this list review "needs" - that
has tended to become hyperpoliticized in the past.

OSI has no particular "vision" about "needs" either, other than, as
stated in the proliferation report, that licenses should not be
duplicative. Even that call can be political, though.

> Broadly speaking, when I engage on the -discuss list discussing
> licensing issues, I get very useful and helpful feedback.   Simply
> validating that this is an acceptable (if encouraged) route to approval
> might stem poorly researched "hit-and-run" license requests.

I'll certainly redirect future crayon'd *submissions* directly to
license-discuss.

Luis