On 1/27/2023 1:01 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 1/26/23 18:10, Pamela Chestek wrote:
The OSI has now posted the recommendations of the License Review
Working Group. The blog post is at
https://blog.opensource.org/the-license-review-working-group-asks-for-community-input-on-its-recommendations/,
with a wiki version available for comments.
https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Working%20Groups%20%26%20Incubator%20Projects/License%20Review/#
None of these recommendations feel new; they all seem to be in line
with our existing practices. Is that the idea, a codification of
existing practice?
BTW, I (still) volunteer for the "license expiration committee". Happy
to help with that.
That may be the result, but it wasn't by design. The design was also to
examine them.
There are some "unwritten rules" that we discussed but didn't adopt,
like the "no vanity license" philosophy.
The hoped-for adoption of tagging is new, although the desire for
machine-readable licenses is not new, just not yet achieved. And a
metrics/quality based sorting of licenses to be listed in a preferred
category, as a replacement for "popular and widely-used or with strong
communities" is also a change, but I wouldn't say new.
Pam
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
_______________________________________________
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
