[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

Richard, has anyone submitted CC0 for voting yet?  Just curious.

Thanks,
Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:56 PM
> To: license-review at opensource.org; nigel.2048 at gmail.com
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-review] Submission of the Upstream 
> Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Nigel,
>
> Looks like I did not respond to this question. The next OSI board meeting is 
> next week. Do you want to submit the revised UCL for
> approval? If so I will recommend approval and I am fairly confident that a 
> decision of some sort can be reached at the meeting.
>
> Richard
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017, at 09:41 PM, Nigel T wrote:
> > Richard,
> >
> > When is the next board meeting? Thanks!
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > > On Feb 23, 2017, at 4:39 PM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 12:40:44PM -0500, Nigel T wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The complete text of the updated license is below.  Let me know if
> > >> this does not address the comments provided in the earlier
> > >> discussion.  If it does then I will repackage the submission and
> > >> have it ready for the board to vote on.
> > >
> > > It certainly reduces the earlier basis for objection on the grounds
> > > of "asymmetry" though doesn't eliminate it entirely. Also as I think
> > > you have pointed out (and something I am still struggling with)
> > > maybe we should be applying a more lenient standard to "special purpose"
> > > licenses. But I am curious to hear other reactions.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > License-review mailing list
> > > License-review at opensource.org
> > > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/licens
> > > e-review
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> > Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-
> > review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170329/d6629b71/attachment.p7s>