On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:25 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > Pam, > > I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically > rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived.
I agree, even though attempting to gather that information would be much more difficult. Just focusing on licenses that have been approved will give an incomplete and misleading picture, particularly because the OSI seems to have been institutionally reluctant to admit to having possibly made policy or administrative mistakes in distant-past license approvals. Adding to the difficulty is that for the most part the OSI has not formally rejected licenses at all, yet often the non-approval disposition of a license submission is (at least arguably) equivalent to a rejection, and is often spoken of as a rejection. As an example, the approval of the Adaptive Public License is arguably in conflict with the "rejection" (i.e., withdrawal after negative license-review reaction) of CC0 several years later. But the "rejection" of CC0 was in line with the "rejection" (withdrawal after negative license-review reaction) of the MXM license a few years earlier. Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
