On 2020/08/25 17:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote: > I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the > requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the > express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and > that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI > License to exist which fills a need not addressed by previously approved > licenses.
Forget the natural person/legal expert whatever aspect. Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "x" is an arbitrary number, the idea is that by being used, there is a demonstrated real world use with professional intent for a usable OSI license which fills a previously unaddressed need with the OSI approved licence range. Phrasing obviously needs a lot of work: * _NASA Open Source License 5.0_ shouldn't be dismissed, simply due to NASA being the sole user of the proposed licence; * I don't know what a good number for "x" is. Something between 2 and a baker's dozen seems right to me. jonathon _______________________________________________ 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
