On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, 17:19 Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com wrote:. > IMO, the business model of the submitter should be completely immaterial, > and the license should stand or fall based on whether it conforms to the > OSD & whether the drafting is sufficiently rigorous and clear. This is one > of several propositions I proposed during my talk at CopyleftConf on Monday. >
Hi McCoy, I don't think the criteria you've laid out are sufficient. For starters there's proliferation which I believe is largely a settled matter. Putting proliferation aside other policy concerns remain. Imagine a license that conforms to the OSD, is drafted rigorously, but may be impossible to comply with in practice (ex. It fails debian-legal's desert island test.) Such a license should be rejected. What good is a license that can't be used? I believe that the board must consider public policy in their decision-making. What I don't see are bright lines delineating which matters of policy they should and should not consider. On the topic of good faith, it's a given that we should assume it. It does not follow from this that we should always disregard the motives of the submitter. In other words: Charity is not a commitment to naiveté. The SSPL followed on the heels of the Commons Clause and Salil Deshpande's anti-open source abuse campaign. Even if we read the OSD narrowly and resolve every question of conformance in favor of the SSPL, it would conform only in a way that hews as close to the bone as possible. I believe it was submitted in bad faith because it looks like a license submitted in bad faith. Brendan >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
