On 3/7/13, Luis Villa <l...@tieguy.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana
> <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
>> The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I
>> believe was approved "in haste". If OSI had such a procedure, I would
>> recommend that the Frameworx license be reviewed for de-listing.
> Any recommendations on what such a process would look like, Richard?
> I'm not super-enthused about the idea, but don't want to rule out
> anything without at least some discussion.

Thank you for taking it into account.
I've put together very roughly a wiki page for a draft proposal of how the
process could, perhaps, look like. The reason is that an actual
prototype of what is being discussed might help a constructive
discussion and give a better view of what is being proposed.

I apologize if that is an unsuitable action. Please feel free to remove it
in that case.

On 3/7/13, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the
> license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error.
> I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's
> justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does
> enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses.
> I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political
> reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like
> approval of licenses.
>> I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with
>> arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license,
> I agree with that.

I've intended the draft mostly on the basis of existing approval process,
and the discussion here, but it surely contains many inappropriate and
rough points. Please, shut it down or change it, as you see fit.
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to