Larry,
As far as I am aware, where the previous OSI board has worst "screwed up"
has been in accepting crayon licenses that can be harmful to the community
(my favorite is the SIL Open Font license, which I contend allows third
parties to place a font in the public domain). The OSD would not, on its
own, have stopped this regardless of the literal-ness of the reading.
Thanks
Bruce
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:22 AM Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > I can easily come up with hypothetical licenses that would seem not to
> fail a highly literalist reading of the OSD, but which historically would
> never have been *treated* as conforming to the OSD, because of an obvious
> failure of the license to provide software freedom as traditionally
> understood in the community.
>
>
>
> Can you please cite examples that we've screwed up (or create a
> hypothetical) because of a "highly literalist reading of the OSD"?
>
>
>
> "Traditionally understood?" You sound like the late Justice Antonin
> Scalia! (Sorry; that crack is ad hominem!) :-)
>
>
>
> /Larry
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
