[bkuhn]

I posted my response on a blog post at: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/16/mongodb-copyleft-...

TL;DR: while vmbrasseur of OSI does say "what's done is done" in comments here, I think the OSI shouldn't accept the proposal as submitted, and should demand that licenses submitted them to have gone through a prior public drafting process. This is particularly important for licenses whose stated goal is to make fundamental changes to how copyleft works. GPLv3 and (even better) copyleft-next made this the standard of how new license drafts are done, and we should follow that standard.

[vmbrasseur]

My friend, the "what's done is done" was purely in reference to the fact that the license was submitted for approval belatedly (IMO). My statement in no way implied whether the license itself would be approved as it stands.

Now that the license has been submitted, folks can now analyse and discuss it, openly. Any decision on the license will spring from those discussions and the related actions (should any be needed) that MongoDB takes based on the feedback they receive.

The proper place for that feedback is on the discussion thread on the review mailing list. Statements on blogs and comments on Hacker News are good for helping to frame that feedback, but aren't well placed to be included in a cohesive conversation.