On 27.10.21 09:26, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Enrico Zini 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.
Hello, no reply after a month and a half.
Would OSI be happy being used as such a guarantor, and if so, could some
of you help wording the addition to the license statement?
I doubt you'll get a definitive answer on this list.
If you want an upfront clarification, you'll probably have to get it before
the board. How to do that I didn't check.
Or, you just design your license and wait until the problem happens for the
first time.
Cheers, Dirk
--
Confused about open source?
Get clarity through https://bayave.com/training
--
Website: https://dirkriehle.com - Twitter: @dirkriehle
Ph (DE): +49-157-8153-4150 - Ph (US): +1-650-450-8550
_______________________________________________
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
