[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)

[Andrew Nassief]

Hi, I withdraw this request and will now start a new request for my version
2.0.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:17 AM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.chestek at opensource.org> wrote:

> Dear Andrew,
>
> If you intend to submit a revised version, it would be considerate of you
> to withdraw this one, to save everyone the time and energy that goes into
> reviewing it. It does not appear that anyone supports this version of the
> license, so the chances of it being approved appear quite slim.
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> On 12/28/2020 8:00 AM, Andrew Nassief wrote:
>
> Hello. In regards to the Amish, many of them have computers and do IT.
> They just have restrictive limits and rules on tech, and as you said they
> decide what is ethical. Many people can be like so and so political parties
> said this, or China does this or this religious group does this therefore
> it is a restriction. However, with that mentality lots of people believe
> that open source shouldn't exist and software should only be commercial.
> One can argue that open source restricts them. Keep in mind also nobody is
> being enforced to use the license and the non-binding clause states at good
> will. Not everybody's good will and sense of moral obligation is the same,
> therefore it is impossible for this to be centralized or me to be some
> authoritarian on ethics.
>
> I still want to provide that license analysis.
>
> In regards to me counter claiming things or comments back and forth, this
> is because I want to defend my case. I still respect people's criticism.
> Disagreeing is part of a diplomatic process. One can disagree and "still be
> friends" afterwards, and that is perfectly fine.
>
> As for many of your points. I feel like it is less to do w/ the mission
> statement and what it says and rather the complexity and where it is
> inserted. Perhaps if these words were more common in the future, the OSI
> may be comfortable with the text in full.
>
> Anyways I do plan on making a more thorough analysis soon on some of your
> core thoughts and what Ronald Turner asked of me.
>
> I am considering a possible version 2 revision or variation centered
> around many of your core concerns. If I decide to do so it wouldn't be that
> I don't believe in my first version, but rather for a simpler way to seek
> OSI approval while accomplishing a similar goal as what I had in mind
> previously.
>
> This is something I'm taking into consideration not confirming. Anyways, I
> do plan a more thorough analysis and response to many of your core points
> soon, and want you to know that I am working on taking your feedback
> respectively into consideration.
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.orghttp://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Andrew Magdy Kamal
http://andsocialrew.wall.fm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201228/fef406dd/attachment.html>