Re: New OSI approved licenses

net> > Date: Monday, January 18, 2016 at 8:06 PM > To: Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org>, "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org" < > spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> > Subject: Re: New OSI approved licenses > > Thank you Richard. The SPDX legal team will review the

Re: New OSI approved licenses

.net>>, Richard Fontana <font...@opensource.org<mailto:font...@opensource.org>>, "spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>" <spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org<mailto:spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org>> Subject: Re: New OSI approved licens

Re: New OSI approved licenses

Thank you Richard. The SPDX legal team will review the licenses for inclusion on the SPDX license list. Best, Paul Madick SPDX Legal Team co-lead On 1/17/2016 5:50 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: Greetings spdx-legal, The OSI recently approved three new licenses: Licence Libre du Québec –

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Hi Rob, I did not add any explanatory text as per your request. Like you said, we can cross that bridge if/when we get questions. By way of background or reminder for those who don’t know all the history: The point of the SPDX License List is to provide a reliable way to identify common

RE: New OSI-approved licenses

Jilayne: > That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered. I agree. In fact, I think listing both "0BSD" and "FPL-1.0.0" is a great solution, especially if the SPDX website includes notices with each similar to the text at https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0: > Note: There

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On 12/17/2015 12:38 PM, J Lovejoy wrote: > That sounds like a reasonable result, all things considered. I don't care what OSI does. > I’ll add a note to the Notes field of Zero Clause BSD License > to the same effect on the upcoming release of the SPDX License List. Please don't. Pretty please?

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

I discussed the issue with Christian Bundy. He does not wish to change the name of the license. With respect to the Zero Clause BSD License I have therefore retained the existing approach on the OSI website: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical (Zero Clause BSD included in list, with

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Back home from traveling, I believe the ball is still in your court on this? Rob On 12/10/2015 08:58 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I don't think that is a good idea. > > I have described the situation to Christian Bundy, the person who > submitted the Free Public License, with a link to this

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Richard, Has anyone from OSI gone back to the folks who submitted the “Free Public License” and ask if they mind or care if the name that Rob prefers is used instead of the one they suggested? Seems like that could potentially be an easy solution. Jilayne SPDX Legal Team co-lead

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Thanks Richard - that would be great. Let us know what you find out! Jilayne > On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > (Forwarding this to spdx-legal.) > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:09AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: >> Hi Jilayne, >> >> No but

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

HI All, Having a bit of a hard time following this, as I think Rob may have confused who was speaking on which organization’s behalf (Richard is coming from the OSI perspective, here) Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be: OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0"

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 07:30:18PM +, J Lovejoy wrote: > Correct me if I’m wrong, but the suggestion seems to be: > > OSI has now posted the "Free Public License 1.0.0" and wants to use the short > identifier FPL-1.0.0 Well that identifier (or something else that bears some similarity to

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Sat, Dec 05, 2015 at 12:57:43AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > As far as I can tell, OSI continues to be unaware that unlicense.org or > creative commons zero even exist. The OSI is aware of them. There's actually been interest for some time in getting OSI approval of a license (or license-like

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Did this ever get resolved? On 11/17/2015 12:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 Text of approved license contained within:

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

Not really. I respect your desire to keep the name of the license you've been using and appreciate your policy objections to the name of the Free Public License; however I have no inclination to ask the OSI to change the name of the approved license (which seems to differ from 0BSD in one respect,

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:24:34PM -0700, J Lovejoy wrote: > > The OSI recently approved three licenses as Open Source: > > > > 1) eCos License version 2.0 (under the 'Legacy Approval' process) > > Text of approved license contained within: > >

Re: New OSI-approved licenses

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 01:32:44AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > 2) Free Public License 1.0.0 > > > Text of approved license contained within: > > > https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-August/001104.html > > > > We have added as of v2.2 -