[License-review] : [License] Linkumori Free License, Version 1.0 – Submission for OSI Review

[Pamela Chestek]

I have continued the discussion on license-discuss.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


On 6/19/2026 8:35 AM, Carlo Piana via License-review wrote:
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *Da: *"Kevin P. Fleming via License-review"
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     *A: *"license-review at lists.opensource.org"
>     <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>     *Cc: *"Kevin P. Fleming" <lists.osi-license-review at kevin.km6g.us>
>     *Inviato: *Giovedì, 18 giugno 2026 15:00:43
>     *Oggetto: *Re:  [License-review] : [License] Linkumori Free
>     License, Version 1.0 – Submission for OSI Review
>
>     On Wed, Jun 17, 2026, at 14:51, subham mahesh wrote:
>
>         What I'm asking from this list is a substantive review of
>         Section 4 on its merits: whether the mechanism works, whether
>         the registered-domain standard holds up, where the edge cases
>         are. If the consensus after that review is that this is better
>         solved as a collaborative effort or folded into existing work,
>         I'm open to that conversation. I'm not, however, looking to
>         have the submission deprioritized purely on the basis that I'm
>         an individual rather than an organization, or that the license
>         doesn't yet have large-scale adoption. Plenty of OSI-approved
>         licenses started exactly there.
>
>
>     That is a topic for the license-discuss list, not the
>     license-review list.
>     (Also, there's no need to put a '[License]' tag in the subjects of
>     messages you send to these lists, it's pretty well understood that
>     all topics on these lists are about licenses!)
>
>
> I agree on both.
>
> Besides, not having an active project with an urgency to adopt a 
> license or to have it approved, I would suggest deferring license 
> review for when the text has been widely discussed and not subject to 
> change. This discussion IMHO (or IMNSHO) belongs more there, for the 
> time being.
>
> Also worth nothing that "this happened in the past" is not a valid 
> argument for the same to happen in the future.
>
> Cheers
>
> Carlo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260621/b73d4c7b/attachment.htm>