[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Richard Fontana fontana at opensource.org
Thu Feb 4 22:11:54 UTC 2016


Bryan,

I have begun going through NOSA 2.0 and commenting on some issues. I
have (re)subscribed you to the list, but here are a few posts I've
already made:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002716.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002717.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002718.html



On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:47:56PM +0000, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> Thanks Richard. We would love to hear your idea. The sooner the better 
> Bryan
> 
> Sent from Outlook Mobile
> 
> _____________________________
> From: Richard Fontana <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>
> Cc: License submissions for OSI review <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>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: License submissions for OSI review
> > Cc: 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>
> >> 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
> >> > To: 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, 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
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> License-review mailing list
> >> License-review at opensource.org
> >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> 
> 
> 



More information about the License-review mailing list