On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:19 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock < nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it > wants to add licenses to the list of OSI-Approved Licenses. > Well, within the OSD, which is effectively our constitution. We have amended the OSD in the past (by adding #10), but this is a very rare thing to do. > However, part of John’s objection seems to be the possibility that OSI is > declaring these licenses are not “Open Source” at all. > Not exactly. I am saying that: 1) If we determine that an OSI-certified license is not OSD-compliant, we decertify it. 2) If we determine that an OSI-certified license is OSD-compliant but probably should not have been certified for other reasons, we think twice about removing it because there may be third-party contractual obligations that depend on its certified status. To which I will add: 3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view, open-source license certification is not a situation in which it is always better to have a settled result than a just result. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org Babies are born as a result of the mating between men and women, and most men and women enjoy mating. --Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
