Andrew DeMarsh wrote on 25/8/20 13:51:
There are plenty of legal professionals on this list that can most likely write a far better rule/requirment, I personally would not throw in the X projects requirement as I think that changes the rules significantly from what they are today and would require a lot more input/consideration then simply "be professional, no mix and match licenses". approach despite that being the "silent" rule in L-D and L-R.
Purely as an FYI, not to imply support or rejection of an idea to have an "X projects" requirement, here's how the SPDX License List handles that:
"The license has actual, substantial use such that it is likely to be encountered. Substantial use may be demonstrated via use in many projects, or in one or a few significant projects. For new licenses, there are definitive plans for the license to be used in one or a few significant projects."
The full SPDX license inclusion principles are here, for the curious: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/master/DOCS/license-inclusion-principles.md
--V _______________________________________________ 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
