On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 04:27:48PM +0200, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote:
> Yes the idea is interesting. > So you avoid giving a "blank check" to the FSF by giving another to OSI... > I assume that both organisations are safe :-) My intention is actually to avoid giving a blank check to any organization: a new version of the GPL would have to be published by FSF, but for it to be considered valid for my code it'd need to be OK-ed by OSI. > For its EUPL compatibility, the European Commission avoided references to > external entities by specifying: > " later versions of the licence as long as they provide the rights granted > in Article 2 of this Licence and protect the covered Source Code from > exclusive appropriation." > An alternative way... Right. That seems like it'd invite argument and litigation around different opinions on where such rights are granted well enough by new versions of the license. Having a second organization give a simple ack/nack would bring the arguments and litigation away from the problem of interpreting the license of my software :) Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.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
