On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:33 PM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > 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.] > > 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 Superseded licenses [Licenses in this category have been superseded by 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.] > > 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. > > For the purposes of this discussion, I think it's really important to distinguish between "this license is perfectly open source but we generally recommend sticking with a small set of well known licenses" and "this license is not open source after all".
henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
_______________________________________________ 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
