Quoting Jim Jagielski ([email protected]): > I certainly did not intend to imply you had...
No problem; just taking care to be clear. As an afterthought, OSI _might_ decide to adopt a policy that all new licences should at least not disclaim/waive any implicit patent waiver that might be created against patents held by licensor (estoppel defence) -- or establish some other minimum requirement on that subject. If so, it might address your rhetorical question[1] as follows: Patents are increasingly important concern in open source and can threaten otherwise open source codebases more than any other current threat. There is almost vanishingly little OSI can practically do to address that subject (especially as to third-party patents) as part of its mission to ensure that OSI Certified licences really convey the intended freedoms in usable form, but it can at least set a bare minimum floor as to the licences' terms themselves. Unlike other methods to render a codebase artificially proprietary despite licensing, such as failure to release source code (or disappearance of it) or export controls, taking this step doesn't require impractical involvement in deployment details, just continuing to say approved or not, as OSI already does. If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2 implies it. I'm not advocating that step, but just point out the possibility. [1] Albeit, people who spend significant time addressing other people's rhetorical questions generally need a better hobby. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
