> On Apr 7, 2021, at 05:59, Jens Vagelpohl <jens at netz.ooo> wrote: >> Signed PGP part >>> On 7. Apr 2021, at 12:12 , Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote: >>>> Is there a reason Zope 2.1 should be listed as 'legacy' and not as a >> 'non-reusable' license as Zope 2.0 is currently listed? It's still in >> active use, so it doesn't seem like it should be listed as 'legacy'. >>> Hi Kevin, >> I chose the terminology “legacy approval” because there was no other term that appeared to match the situation when I want to update an existing certified license that had been in use for many years. IMHO the existing OSI classification for ZPL 2.0 as “non-reusable” is still valid and I didn’t intend to question that part. >> Jens Vagelpohl This is the same way we handled the recent legacy approval of the PHP License 3.01. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004716.html Cheers, Ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210407/157606b3/attachment.asc>