Open Research Institute will pursue setting up a non-profit hosting service with the open source and ethical qualities we all desire. Since this is potentially a multi-million dollar crowdfunding, it will take a little time to get started.
Thanks Bruce On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 12:14 Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > > > Actually, what Thorsten Glaser said was: > [snip] > > Not sure if quoting the entire e-mail is actually in disagreement with my > characterization or just being pedantic, but I did not find it helpful. If > anything, it’s a circular pitfall that I’m not going to repeat beyond to > address the additional point reiterated: > > > I think you cannot even get anything resembling a > > representative number even with quite some effort. > > > > The point seems well-taken: > > Except that we don’t need a representative number. If use cannot be > found, that would not imply there isn’t any. I certainly haven’t said that. > > > Often-suggested licence census tools > > tend to check only major public repos, and that couldn't establish that > > an OSI Approved licence isn't used, only that it wasn't grepped for > > in major public repos, because that is just _not_ a proxy for 'public > > availability and discoverability' (your term), hence not sufficient. > > Not necessarily sufficient. Academically, sure, but with the specific OSI > list, it may or may not be sufficient. The broken-record point is to > narrow the discussion to licenses that are not “trivially” (my term) found, > to better understand (and document) license use, and help drive future > decisions that will get made regardless. > > >> What I would expect is all but a handful are really trivial, and then > >> a more productive conversation (and more rigorous discovery) could be > >> made with those few. > > > > Again, implicitly this dismisses codebases not currently present in major > > public repos for whatever reason, or, further to Thorsten's point, with > > licence grants only in the Cyrillic or Greek or Devangari alphabets, etc. > > Nothing is being dismissed, implicitly or otherwise. On the contrary, I > suggested that should lead to more productive conversation on those > licenses. > > I’d rather engage in constructive discussion, not to assume they aren’t > used, but to better know how they are / were used and take steps from > there. Naysaying without an alternative is not constructive. Doing > nothing is not constructive either, imho, and that is perhaps where we > disagree. > > > Sean > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
