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

[VanL]

With the mild proviso that this discussion really should be on
license-discuss, I also think a deprecation committee is a great idea.

- Van

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> *>>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.
>
>
>
> >>Richard
>
>
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200207/916357d3/attachment-0001.html>