Le 05/04/2012 20:22, Luis Villa a écrit : > If the affiliates and board approve of a more active, forward-looking > role for OSI, then OSI can follow through on what license-discuss > advises in this thread. If they would prefer to remain in the current, > filter-only-for-OSD position, then this will have been an interesting > thought experiment for someone else to build on.
A less controversial way to provide more useful information could be to provide a license *database* rather than a license *list*, where each license would be associated with a number of fields, and users would be allowed to sort licenses as they wish. Possible fields could be: * License type : permissive, strong copyleft, weak copyleft; * License scope : general purpose, special purpose, non-reusable; * License status : current, superseded, retired * License creation date; * License popularity : either using data provided by third parties like the one named after a dark bird ;), or keys like popular, common, unusual, etc * License steward; Default sorting could feature "current", "popular", "general purpose" licenses first. A number of other fields could useful from a technical standpoint: * Choice of law clause ? yes/no * Express compatibility clause ? no, or list of compatible licenses * Patent clause ? none, retaliation, pooling -- Romain _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
