[License-review] For Legacy Approval: eCos License version 2.0 [ was Re: License Committee Report ]

[Richard Fontana]

Good news, everyone: the OSI Board has granted legacy approval to the
eCos License version 2.0.

Richard



On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 08:02:53AM +0100, John Dallaway wrote:
> Richard
> 
> Is it possible to put the submission for legacy approval of the eCos
> License version 2.0 before the OSI board on September 9?
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Dallaway
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 17:39:29 -0400
> From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: [License-review] License Committee Report
> Message-ID: <20150906213929.GA6423 at sharpeleven.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> This is my report for licenses currently submitted to OSI, though it
> doesn't address certain old submissions that were noted in
> "Outstanding license submissions" other than NOSA 2.0.[1]
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> [1]https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-June/001003.html
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: Outstanding license submissions
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:22:32 +0100
> From: John Dallaway <john at dallaway.org.uk>
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> 
> Richard
> 
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400 you wrote:
> 
> > There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
> > that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
> > debatable.
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the
> > point of this list's hosting on opensource.org, i.e. late 2011). I
> > believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for
> > OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally
> > lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was
> > acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I
> > believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,
> > particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a
> > troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is
> > likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,
> > say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > eCos License version 2.0
> >
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/000853.html
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > I am not sure what if anything we should do about all of these, other
> > than NOSA 2.0 which clearly requires a decision by the board for the
> > very patient Mr. Geurts. If perchance anyone reading this was
> > associated with one of the listed license submissions, by all means
> > please indicate whether you wish to revive review of the license in
> > question.
> 
> Please do revive review of the eCos License version 2.0. I have
> responded to all discussion and followed up with a status enquiry Dec
> 30, 2014. If there are any further questions, please let me know.
> 
> Regards
> 
> John Dallaway
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review