McCoy Smith described the category: > 3. Other/Miscellaneous licenses [These licenses do not fall neatly into any category.]
Remind me: What does this mean to a licensor or licensee? Does it help license selection or was it merely a politically-correct classification for "license proliferation" reasons? /Larry -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 9:47 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; 'Pamela Chestek' <pam...@chesteklegal.com> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> > On Behalf Of Josh Berkus > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 9:25 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; Pamela Chestek > <pam...@chesteklegal.com> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Generic process for removing approved > licenses. Re: REMOVE AAL from list of approved licenses > > I would argue that, rather, redundant, superceded, and voluntarily > retired licenses are all subcategories of deprecated. However, none > of those words > carry the implication for developers and companies that "deprecated" > does; that simple word conveys the idea that the license exists but > should not be > used. None of the other catergory words we've chosen work in that fasion. > The current OSI categories are as follows: 1. Licenses that are "popular and widely-used or with strong communities" 2. Special purpose licenses [Certain licensors, such as schools and the US government, have specialized concerns, such as specialized rules for government copyrights. Licenses that were identified by the License Proliferation Committee as meeting a special need were placed in this group.] 3. Other/Miscellaneous licenses [These licenses do not fall neatly into any category.] 4. Licenses that are redundant with more popular licenses [Several licenses in this group are excellent licenses and have their own followings, however these licenses were perceived by the License Proliferation Committee as completely or partially redundant with existing licenses.] 5. Non-reusable licenses [Licenses in this group are specific to their authors and cannot be reused by others. Many, but not all, of these licenses fall into the category of vanity licenses.] 6. Superseded licenses [Licenses in this category have been superseded by newer versions.] 7. Licenses that have been voluntarily retired [Self-defining category. No one should use these licenses going forward, although we assume that licensors may or may not choose to continue to use them.] 8. Uncategorized Licenses I suppose one could create a supraset called "Deprecated Licenses" comprising subsets consisting of 4, 6 and 7 above, although you'd get some controversy about adding category 4 to that supraset, as some of the authors of licenses in category 4 do not believe that their licenses ought to be considered redundant and would likely object even more if their license were categorized as deprecated. _______________________________________________ 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.opensourc e.org _______________________________________________ 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
