It depends on what role the OSI is supposed to take. Is the OSI just the FSF, but with different branding? Is the OSI just the recognizer and rubber-stamper of existing practice?
No, the OSI is something different - it is a certifier. There is a definition of "open source" and the OSI maintains it. The OSI reviews submissions for conformance with the definition. Its charitable purpose is education regarding that definition and the benefits of using software governed by licenses conforming to that definition. If we want to get back to the OSI's charter, by all means, let's do that! Let's talk about the OSD, and what it means, and why it is important. If the OSD needs to be updated, let's talk about that. It has been updated before. If the procedures for evaluating conformance need to be changed, let's talk about that. But in this forum, we should be focused on the purposes of the OSI, not other purposes. It so happens that "open source" software will almost always be Free Software - but not always. It also so happens that many of the submissions will recognize and reflect existing practice - but not always. You bring up the vanity licenses, the crayon licenses, etc. The CAL is none of those. So why should the submission of those licenses be relevant to the CAL? Speaking generally, if there is failure on the part of the OSI, it is that people have been unwilling to work out and put into place the rules necessary to exclude licenses that "fit" the OSD but aren't acceptable for some other reason. Instead, we have a bunch of half-understood, under-the-radar norms that change from person to person and situation to situation. I am still astounded that there seems to be substantial resistance to the idea that we should define and write down these norms - as if writing them down would somehow undermine them! So if someone wants to propose a new rule, such as "a license must have demonstrated uptake in the community," then this is the place to do it. But let's be explicit about what we are doing, and stop inventing rules on a situation-by-situation basis. __________________________ Van Lindberg van.lindb...@gmail.com m: 214.364.7985
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
