[note: moving to license-discuss]
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 7:12 PM Bruce Perens via License-review
<license-rev...@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
So, why don't we guide people to use this strategically coherent set? It
would seem to me to be a step forward.
I definitely find it annoying to have to wrestle with N different minor
variations of those three and M different OSI-certified or not open source
licenses when doing a license audit for a release. And barely a release
goes by when some useful utility someone included into the tree is
non-obviously licensed with an OSI certified license that is still
incompatible with an overall Apache license for the combined work, so some
scrambling and sometimes re-authoring is required.
At the same time, I consider a key part of OSI's legitimacy has rested
upon the fact that its mission, decisions, and actions are based on
bedrock principles (the Open Source Definition, based on your own DFSG),
not on personalities, books of dogma, or religious rites. Those
principles, as awkwardly and as incompletely phrased as any list of
fundamental rights or concepts ever is (see US Constitution, Bill of
Rights, Geneva Convention, etc) is intended to be interpreted and applied
in real time, which means outcomes sometimes change. Those principles
could be changed too, but much less frequently and requiring near
universal agreement.
I can't see how OSI could be principles-based AND declare there are only 3
that matter or qualify. But I would like to see OSI do more active
education on what Open Source as a term means and how it works, and part
of that could be strong encouragement to use the commonly used
OSI-approved licenses, to avoid crayon licenses or those without clear
patent terms, that sort of thing. But if it were to actively denigrate
other qualifying Open Source licenses then it throws doubt onto its
principles-driven nature.
On Mon, 27 May 2019, John Cowan wrote:
Because, whether you or I like it or not, that will be perceived as a
political act that favors the ASF and the FSF and disfavors the
open-source communities that are adverse to these organizations (even if
not specifically to their licenses). So if you do that, those
communities will put it about that the OSI is no longer neutral among
the many people who do open source, but are RMS-lovers and Behlendorf
brown-neckers (it's already bad enough to be book-muckers and
'puter-rubbers, since that be naught for true men). And then they will
smite you hip and thigh in the press.
Help, I Googled "brown-neckers", and I don't think my locale is set to
Olde English or whatever you're speaking, because all I get are Necker's
Jewelers, lost dog notices, and obituaries. Regardless, I hope folks
don't make their licensing decisions based on their opinion of me!
Brian
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
