[License-review] For Legacy Approval: Zope Public License v2.1

[Ben Ramsey]

> On Apr 7, 2021, at 05:59, Jens Vagelpohl <jens at netz.ooo> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
>> On 7. Apr 2021, at 12:12 , Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>> 
>> Is there a reason Zope 2.1 should be listed as 'legacy' and not as a
>> 'non-reusable' license as Zope 2.0 is currently listed? It's still in
>> active use, so it doesn't seem like it should be listed as 'legacy'.
> 
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> I chose the terminology “legacy approval” because there was no other term that appeared to match the situation when I want to update an existing certified license that had been in use for many years. IMHO the existing OSI classification  for ZPL 2.0 as “non-reusable” is still valid and I didn’t intend to question that part.
> 
> Jens Vagelpohl


This is the same way we handled the recent legacy approval of the PHP License 3.01.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html

Cheers,
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210407/157606b3/attachment.asc>