Engel Nyst <engel.n...@gmail.com> writes:
>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.

Not at all -- this is *exactly* what the wiki is for!  As long as a page
doesn't misrepresent itself as an official position of the OSI (and
yours doesn't), it's fine & indeed welcome.


>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
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to