Richard Fontana wrote: > FWIW the Fedora Project has identified OSI-approved licenses it believes do not meet the Free Software Definition (most of these, but I think not all, are based on the FSF's own judgments).
FWIW, I am intentionally NOT a member of FSF nor a supporter of their license judgments. Fedora Project can of course do what it wants, but please don't foist FSF "software freedom" judgments on "open source principles" honored by OSI. Also FWIW, these are the "open source principles" that I wrote about in Chapter 1 of my book, and that the Prentice Hall graphic illustrator drew on the cover like a legal parchment: Open source licensees are free to: * Use open source software for any purpose * Make and distribute copies * Create and distribute derivative works * Access and use the source code * Combine open source and other software Also FWIW, Richard Stallman told me at that time that the only principle he quarreled with was the fifth one. But that principle is fundamental to guarantee a shared commons of open source software regardless of its specific approved license! Only the GPL/AGPL are exceptions. Argue against them if you wish, but at least these principles are more meaningful than the phrase "software freedom." /Larry -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 1:16 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy < <mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com> 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. I would also be interested in such an effort. FWIW the Fedora Project has identified OSI-approved licenses it believes do not meet the Free Software Definition (most of these, but I think not all, are based on the FSF's own judgments). Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensour ce.org> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensourc e.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
