[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Wed Feb 3 18:47:56 UTC 2016

Thanks Richard. We would love to hear your idea. The sooner the better
Bryan

Sent from Outlook Mobile<https://aka.ms/qtex0l>

_____________________________
From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org<mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
To: Bryan Geurts <superbag22 at hotmail.com<mailto:superbag22 at hotmail.com>>
Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>

Hi Bryan,

Apologies. I have an idea about how to make some progress with this. No
begging necessary!

Richard

On 2016-02-02 17:55, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> We are still waiting. In a couple months it will be two years since
> NASA first submitted NOSA 2.0 for certification. How can we help
> facilitate the process? At this point we are willing to about
> anything, including collectively getting onto our knees and begging,
> if that would help.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Bryan
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org<mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org>>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Cc: superbag22 at hotmail.com<mailto:superbag22 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
> No other than that this is weighing heavily on my mind. I just need to
> set aside some time to prepare a full set of comments on the license
> text (which might not be extensive).
>
> Regarding your earlier message, I don't think a conference call is
> needed at this stage, but once I prepare said full set of comments we
> can see where things stand.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:49:27PM +0000, Bryan Geurts wrote:
>> The NASA OS team is meeting this afternoon. Is there any update I can
>> provide
>> regarding the NOSA 2.0 certification?
>> Bryan
>>
>> Sent from Outlook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM -0700, "Bryan Geurts"
>> <superbag22 at hotmail.com<mailto:superbag22 at hotmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet? We at NASA
>> continue
>> to anxiously await approval. If I remember correctly, we first
>> submitted it
>> for approval about two years ago.
>>
>> Bryan Geurts
>>
>> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400
>> > From: fontana at opensource.org<mailto:fontana at opensource.org>
>> > To: license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>
>> > Subject: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
>> >
>> > Hi license-review,
>> >
>> > There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
>> > that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
>> > debatable.
>> >
>> > 1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source
>> > Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in
>> > fact).
>> >
>> > I intend to post something separately about this one.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the
>> > point of this list's hosting on opensource.org<http://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.
>> >
>> > Forget Me Not License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/
>> 000072.html
>> >
>> > Svoboda
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/000416.html
>> >
>> > No Nonsense Open Source License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/000441.html
>> >
>> > APL AROS Public License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/000451.html
>> >
>> > Symisc Public License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/
>> 000484.html
>> >
>> > "BSD-based anti-patent license"
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/
>> 000522.html
>> >
>> > Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/
>> 000547.html
>> >
>> > Public Software License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/
>> 000750.html
>> >
>> > Russian Permissive Free Software License
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/
>> 000758.html
>> >
>> > eCos License version 2.0
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/
>> 000853.html
>> >
>> > GG License 1.0
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/
>> 000968.html
>> >
>> > I am not including here license submissions that I believe it is
>> > fairly clear were withdrawn from consideration by the submitter.
>> >
>> > You might argue that several of these were not really worth extensive
>> > review, but a clear decision ought to have been made nonetheless, and
>> > in any case that view can't apply to *all* of the license submissions
>> > in this set.
>> >
>> >
>> > 3. Really Old license submissions found by Engel Nyst:
>> > (see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November/
>> 000733.html )
>> >
>> > Zope Public License 2.1
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html
>> >
>> > wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html
>> >
>> > W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)
>> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not sure how exhaustive Engel Nyst's research was but I have to
>> > wonder whether there were other lost license approval requests from
>> > the 2005-2011 period.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Is there anything we should do to take better care of license approval
>> > submissions? It was suggested a while back that we consider using an
>> > issue tracker for all license approval requests.
>> >
>> > Richard
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > License-review mailing list
>> > License-review at opensource.org<mailto:License-review at opensource.org>
>> > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org<mailto:License-review at opensource.org>
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160203/5b9162aa/attachment.html>