On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 2:08 PM Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi> wrote: > >> Since none of our current problem licenses are (3), maybe we could skip >> that criterion? It seems too subjective to actually employ. Here's my >> suggested criteria based on yours: >> >> 1. license does not in fact conform to the OSD (was erroneously approved) >> >> 2. does not appear to be used for any currently available/working >> software *and is redundant with more popular licenses* (added condition >> mine). > > > I would like to postpone the activity on #2. Let's first focus on licenses > that have actual problems. Arguably, if a license isn't being used anyway, it > cannot be an urgent problem.
There are some influential people who use the fact that a given obscure license was approved ~20 years ago to argue for approval of new licenses with provisions that are problematic from a software freedom perspective, or to justify policy positions on what open source means that are at odds with mainstream views in open source (notably in the standards context), or simply to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the OSI and the OSD. I believe that makes the problem somewhat urgent in some cases (perhaps not in the case of licenses in the badgeware category, though). Richard _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
