Record rejected licenses? about licenses HOT 9 CLOSED

Hi @wking,

Not trying to be snarky, but the OSI does not reject licenses per se, rather it never approves a license.

A little background. Licenses are approved through a "License Review Process" (https://opensource.org/approval) where a "License Steward" submits a new license to "License Review" (a mailing list). Then anyone on that list (currently around 300 people) can raise issues with the license, e.g. conflicts with the OSD, ambiguity, duplicate, etc.

Some Stewards may choose to respond to these issues, others may simply not follow up. For those that do not follow up, the license would simply be ignored with no vote warranted.

However, if the Steward chooses to engage, they will need to address (fix, clarify or defend) the issues until they are resolved to the satisfaction of the License Review community. Once all the issues have been resolved, the OSi then crystallizes the consensuses (quietness) of the community with a vote for approval. If consensus is never achieved, then there is never a vote (to accept or reject).

When it comes to licenses, OSI is not King; it is the Speaker of the House. Our role is to encourage participation, foster discussion/debate, collect/archive evidence, etc. By holding a public discussion of each license around the Open Source Definition, a consensus emerges that can then be crystallized by the OSI Board.

With this approach, you probably would need to change the categories from “not (yet) considered” to “not (yet) submitted”, and from “considered and rejected" to "submitted and not (yet) voted on."

You could find the latter by scraping the License Review list (https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/) to find those that were introduced to the License Review list, but not on the current approved list. I have no way how to figure out all the licenses that might claim to be open source, but that were never submitted.

Sorry this is probably not too much help for you, but I hope it makes sense. - Patrick

from licenses.

Pull requests to the machine readable repo and discussion about how to collect this information are welcome. Until then, this will be closed because of a lack of historical data

from licenses.

You tell me :)

But seriously, I have no idea how good it is or how complete it is. You may soon be the world's expert :)

from licenses.

So some cases:

a. No OSI discussion.
b. List discussion, but no Board decision.
c. Board considered and rejected (possibly with public reasoning, e.g. a majority opinion piece).
d. Board considered and approved.

I agree that (a) is out of scope for this repo, and (b) is a low enough bar that I'm happy to consider it out of scope too. What I'm interested in here is (c). Or maybe that never happens, and the License Review Chair only puts licenses that will be approved before the Board?

Folks interested in a formal ruling for a (b) license that had a not-open consensus could always ask for a formal Board decision to move it to (c).

from licenses.

Also:

e. Board considered and asked for more information.

In which case it would be nice to record the request-for-info in the API too.

from licenses.

Regarding "c", the board would never have a vote on a license that had not first reached a consensus among the community...more specifically, that the community could not find fault with.

If the consensus of the community was that the license did not meet the criteria of the OSD, or if there were open issues presented by the community, unanswered by the Steward, we would not vote on it.

Only when the community reaches silence (nothing left to complain about), will the chair of the License Committee introduce a motion to approve the license. I do not think any motion to approve has been defeated. But there have been many licenses introduced to License Review that never where introduced as a motion to approve during a Board meeting.

So "C" would actually read, "Motion to Board for approval and defeated (possibly with public reasoning, e.g. a majority opinion piece)." There would be zero instances of this.

Considering that, and what I think you are after, "B" might provide more value, "B. List discussion, but no Board decision." This would include CC0, "Do Whatever the **** you want..." etc.

Again--I hope I am helping here.

from licenses.

from licenses.

... discussion about how to collect this information...

I was going to walk the minutes for motions. Would that be sufficiently complete for a first pass?

from licenses.

I'm working through the minutes now, and the 2005-09-12 minutes have acceptances, rejections, and deferrals (so all three cases I'm interested in :). And while I will aim for completeness, I think missing some rejected/deferred licenses is recoverable. If someone brings them up again, and someone else remembers the previous decision, the previous decision can always be added to this repository then.

from licenses.