On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:53 PM Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock (nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com): > > > The possibility of unintentionally including licenses as "Open Source" > > that the community does not view as providing proper software freedom > > is mostly philosophical. But the possibility of licenses no longer > > being "Open Source" could have real-world implications for projects > > that already use these licenses, as well as the folks who use those > > projects. > > I would suggest that there is very little real-world acceptance of very > peculiar and obscure licences merely on grounds that they became OSI > Certified through laxity and inattention, long ago. In particular, > I think open source coders in general have become fairly skeptical of > such things when considering what projects to sink time and effort into. > > This is something authors of vanity and crayon licences inevitably don't > 'get', but I maintain has been generally true for some decades. There's > a prevalent (and IMO healthy) attitude that, if a project isn't under > one of the major licences, at bare minimum this requires a compelling > explanation about why. > > That's not to say that OSI Certified licences that really shouldn't have > been approved aren't a lingering problem, but I'd call it a small one. > Agreed that these are a small problem, but possibly a good opportunity for OSI - an opinionated cleanup of the old cruft might be a nice test case/MVP for new criteria, if OSI wanted to (re)build confidence in the process and build some "caselaw" for future reference. Luis
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
