[License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Fri Feb 7 21:29:47 UTC 2020

>>From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
>>Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 1:12 PM
>>To: Eric Schultz <eric at wwahammy.com>
>>Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>>Subject: Re: [License-review] For approval: The Cryptographic Autonomy License (Beta 4)


>>I agree with this. I would feel better if the OSI had some process for reviewing and potentially delisting or at least deprecating approved licenses based on problematic experiences with a >>license that were not foreseeable at the time of approval. 




I second the idea of a License Deprecation Committee, a la the License Proliferation Committee of ’04.  In fact, you could make it a License Proliferation and Deprecation Committee to address both issues (assuming there are people who believe license proliferation is now a problem).


Given that there have been existing licenses on the list that have been argued as precedent for recent submissions which were rejected or opposed, at a minimum there ought to be a serious look at some of the historical approvals to test whether those approvals would survive under current standards.  I can think of at least one license currently on the list which I’ve looked at recently where I can’t justify it as consistent with the OSD (or at least my understanding thereof) or the approval process as currently run.  That’s not a situation that I believe ought to exist and can play into the perception that OSI approval is inconsistent and/or arbitrary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200207/16aa623e/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list