On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > > [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant, new > works using this license are not Open Source" category? > > I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review > the current list to identify any listed licenses that do not (or might not) > conform to the OSD.
A potential starting point could be the 49 license spdx lists as being OSI-approved but not FSF-approved: https://spdx.org/licenses/ <https://spdx.org/licenses/> Of course, some of those are simply licenses that haven’t undergone FSF review, but a good start regardless. It would be informative to see if there is a common reason where there are discrepancies as that likely will point to either a difference in “freedom” or process criteria. If the prior, that may help with annotating the OSD w.r.t. “software freedom” and the OSI. Cheers! Sean
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
