"Smith, McCoy" <[email protected]> writes: >FWIW, the report from the committee (which formed in ’04 but didn’t >issue a report until ’06) was published here: >http://www.opensource.org/proliferation > >AFAIK, that report didn’t result in a significant amount of voluntary >deprecation of licenses (at the time, there were only 4 OSI-approved >licenses that had been deprecated; I don’t think many others have >since). > >I also don’t know if that report had some influence on stemming the >tide of new licenses submitted for OSI-approval, but it seems as >though fewer have been added to the list since 2006. Those who have >kept closer tabs on the pace of license submission (or voluntary >deprecations) might be able to shed more light on both of those >issues. > >I’m pretty sure there was some degree of dissatisfaction with the >output of the ’04 committee and I thought there was going to be a new >committee set up to reconsider the output, but perhaps that never >happened. > >Sorry for the top-posting for those of you who find that confusing.
No, that was really helpful -- thank you! (And I'm no reflexive objector to top-posting, FWIW; sometimes it's appropriate, as here.) -K >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce >Perens >Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 9:06 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [License-discuss] license committee > > > >If I'm not mistaken, this committee met in 2004? "Time to do it right" >would be about doing it over. Did I miss some announcement? > >On 03/09/2012 08:55 AM, John Cowan wrote: > >Karl Fogel scripsit: > > > > > If you want an organization that recommends licenses, the FSF is happy > > > to help. I agree that OSI should have a short-list of recommended > > > licenses, but the politics of dis-recommending some organization's > > > license are too much for them. > > > > > This isn't actually the case, by the way. It's not the politics; it's > > > more the time it takes to do it right. > > > > >I sat on the committee that came up with OSI's current classifications. > >Its original remit was to evaluate licenses into best/okay/bad, but no > >one except me was willing to actually say that a license was bad or that > >people shouldn't use it, so we wound up with the existing, basically > >fact-based classification scheme. And we took plenty of time just to > >get to that, so it wasn't a matter of time. > > > >I believe I was the only non-lawyer on that committee, except for ESR > >who wasn't able to attend most of the meetings. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >License-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
