On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 05:48:22PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Richard Fontana scripsit: > > > The OSI should have some sort of process for delisting > > formerly-approved licenses for reasons of failing to actually meet the > > Open Source Definition (or some future replacement of it). That is to > > say, the OSI should be willing to admit that it made a mistake, much > > as a court (while it might ordinarily apply the policy of stare > > decisis) will in certain cases overrule its prior decisions. Clearly > > for policy reasons such actions should be exceptional rather than > > common, and perhaps should be limited to certain licenses that were > > approved during a particular period in the OSI's existence (I would > > guess 2000-2005?). > > Fine in principle, but do you actually have examples of such licenses that > contravene the OSD? (About future revisions, of course, nothing can be said.)
Well, here's a list of OSI-approved licenses that Tom Callaway and I judged non-FOSS when we examined them (though I haven't looked at these in a few years). (This does not include the Artistic License 1.0 and certain of its OSI-approved derivatives, which Fedora treats as non-FOSS based on FSF precedent.) : Adaptive Public License http://opensource.org/licenses/apl1.0.php Frameworx License http://opensource.org/licenses/frameworx.php OCLC Public Research License 2.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/oclc2.php Reciprocal Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php Ricoh Source Code Public License http://opensource.org/licenses/ricohpl.php Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php If a convincing explanation can be given for why these licenses do meet the OSD, then the problem is the OSD. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
