VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com>:
> I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
> Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
> that should probably be decertified.
>
> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
> licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - even without
> affirmative submission. Most of them will not be controversial. We want to
> reach a world in which we have looked at all the source-available licenses
> and made a determination as to their OSD conformance. This strengthens the
> OSD as a tool for measuring licenses.
I concur with all of this.
I didn't endorse deprecation as an *exclusive* alterrnative to
decertification, but rather as a lesser step we can take by itself
when appropriate *and* as notice that future decertification could be in the
offing.
I am a huge fan of the SPDX effort, by the way. All my code has been
SPDXified for years. I did my best to promote it back around 2016 and
was quite gratified when a rumor reached me that some people on the
project credit me with reviving general interest in it.
So I am strongly in favor of anything we can do to cooperate wuth
them, build on their work, or help them use ours.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
