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

[Richard Fontana]

Hi Cem,

No. It would have been done by posting to license-review.

Richard

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017, at 06:00 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
(US) wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + smime.p7s
>   9k (application/pkcs7-signature)