Re: Request Discussion Pre-Reviews For New Licenses (chewkeanho-rlos, chewkeanho-cos, chewkeanho-gpos)

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 6:25 AM Josh Berkus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Again, what are you trying to accomplish here?  Why do you think it's
> necessary?
>
> --
> Josh Berkus

I plan to grant the registered IPs like the cos then have the newly
converged license to be renamed as clos (Commercial & Libre) and make
rlos deprecated from use. Then upgrade it with
https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/audience/.

If your query is about my train of thought: license is a black and
white document and Registered IPs are usually sorted out at inbound
licenses stage. It's the matter of how to roll out to the customer so
it's either explicitly stating the grant is denied or permitted with
conditions; no in-between or "I don't know". Clarity is the keyword,
not deny or grant.

By removing those denying clauses, it assumes the customers know what
to do and they are likely going to assume the registered IPs are
granted. Assumptions are bad especially in the case of clear B&W and
the latter has very bad repercussions. Hence, this is why I think it's
very irresponsible.

OSI determines what is suitable for "Open Source" definitions so I
will comply with its requirements.


Regards,
Holloway

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org