[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017

[Josh berkus]

On 01/08/2017 07:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I believe the following are all the outstanding licenses submitted
> between October 2015 and the present, plus NOSA 2.0:
> 
> 
> NASA Open Source Agreeement 2.0
> ===============================
> 
> Original submission:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001944.html
> 
> Comments: See https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2017-January/002924.html
> 
> Recommendation: Reject.

Huh?  According to our prior discussion on this list, you said you'd
pass along to the board that your reject opinion was in the minority,
and what the dissent was. I don't see any of that at all.

> Zentao Public License
> =====================
> 
> Submission:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-June/002800.html
> 
> Comments: Submission did not fully follow approval
> requirements. Substantive discussion focused on the badgeware issue;
> some suggested that legacy approval might be a more appropriate
> path. 
> 
> Recommendation: Reject.

Why is it "reject" if we're recommending legacy approval?  This doesn't
make any sense.

> Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0)
> =============================================
> 
> Submission: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-October/002856.html
> 
> Comments: Questions were raised about conformance with the
> nondiscrimination policy of OSD 5. It was suggested that the license
> be redrafted so that all downstream modifications are licensed under
> the Apache License 2.0 (rather than just upstream licensors receiving
> a copy under the Apache License 2.0).
> 
> Recommendation: At request of license submitter and others, OSI to
> provide general guidance by commenting on whether a license that
> privileges one class of licensees by giving it greater permissions
> relative to other licensees conflicts with OSD or should be
> discouraged or disapproved for non-OSD policy reasons.

Again, there was follow-up on this where we suggested an improvement to
the structure of this language, and the submitter was waiting on
feedback from the committee that that improvement would make it more
acceptable.  They never got it.

--Josh Berkus