Since there appears to be interest (hurrah!), some highlights from the thread:

Perens: "There are already too many Open Source licenses. If we never accepted another, that would not be a particularly bad thing."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Mitchell: "Plain English legal drafting is making inspiring headway, as a craft. Open source licensing shouldn't cut itself out of the benefits."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Tzeng: "It strikes me that there's no real reason for the rest of us to bother being here if the "old hands" decide what to do regardless of the consensus of the list. Evidently any license submission can be delayed indefinitely."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Randall: "But, one thing open source and free software have demonstrated is that chaotic, rowdy groups of humans can accomplish amazing things together, even despite (and sometimes because of) all their imperfections. Please be patient with us, but persistent. I promise you will get an answer."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Perens: "There aren't that many actually useful variations on the licenses that actually pass the OSD. There are actually only three useful licenses, a gift-style, a sharing-with-rules-style, and something in between. Given Affero and GPL3 terms on those three, essentially all purposes for Open Source can be carried out. All else is embellishment."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Villa: "I'm pretty sure that, contra Bruce, it isn't OSI's position that open
source needs to stay forever trapped in amber, but a reasonable outside
observer (like Kyle!) could certainly conclude otherwise."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Fontana: "I'm generally struck by how conservative, technically and perhaps legally clueless and hidebound contemporary proprietary software license agreements tend to be - though not in the same way as open source licenses, which are vulnerable to similar criticisms."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Perens (quoting): " > A bolder new license might consider: What does an economically viable open source look like?

My usual answer for this is that if you have to ask how you're going to make money, you're the wrong person to make Open Source. Nowhere in the mission of OSI is any mandate to provide authors with a viable business method."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Mitchell: "Hacker-types still favor MIT/BSD over Apache 2.0. Facebook followed suit after the PATENTS tragicomedy. If you don't trust FSF---or OSI for that matter---and you don't have a legal department large enough for an open licensing wonk, you want a license you can read. You want a purpose-built tool that directly expresses your purpose, and little more."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

Perens: "We are asking of you only one thing. Go forth and use your license. We are
not stopping you. Just don't call it Open Source."

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...