"Lawrence Rosen" <[email protected]> writes: >Now I’ll say it publicly: I formally object to any attempt by OSI to >pretend that the current list of “recommended licenses” has any value >or validity, and I request that you NOT patch it by putting useless >explanations around it. Please start a meaningful community process to >develop license selection guidelines and explanations of the >differences among licenses, and leave the politics and biases on the >cutting room floor.
This discussion will go better if no one makes unwarranted assumptions about people's motivations for grouping licenses in certain ways. As has been explained multiple times, Luis's current proposal is intentionally based on something that was determined a long time ago, and he is doing it this way in order to be able to take one small step now -- and not have it bottlenecked by the larger & more complex discussion that needs to happen to update that list. I think Mike has pointed this out too. Luis and Mike are absolutely right, IMHO. The point is not that the list is the best list we can possibly have. It's that it is a starting point, and is still a better landing page than the one we have now. Regarding this point: >[I’ll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval >in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it >should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the >list of OSI-approved licenses” as “popular, widely used, or have >strong communities.” Is it because there are defenders of the MPL 2.0 >on the OSI board? Is that honest, fair, unbiased and legitimate?] I think the list should use the most recent version of a license whose past versions met the criteria, unless there's some important reason not to do so. I believe that's the principle being followed here, though Luis or someone should please correct that if wrong. >[I’ll add something also about the absence of the AGPL or the OSL 3.0 >on the list: Both of those licenses have been rejected by Google >internally because such licenses are not friendly to their SaaS >models. Is that why they both are omitted from the list despite their >popularity, wide use, and strong communities?] Isn't it because their SaaS clauses are significant new things that were not present in the original evaluation, and including them now would be putting the cart before the horse? Maybe those two should be on an updated list, but, again, that's the discussion that still needs to be had. This is the right minimal step for the OSI to take now. You seem to be reacting as if this list is set in stone, and that no process will ever exist by which it can be updated. There is no basis for thinking that. However, just because you want to start that process right now doesn't mean everyone else does. Personally, I'd like to see this one small step get done first. Our current license landing page(s) are extremely unhelpful for newcomers. Now they will be somewhat more helpful, and with time we can make them very helpful. We're just on "somewhat" right now, and you want to be on "very". We'll get there. -K >-----Original Message----- >From: Karl Fogel [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 8:24 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Luis Villa >Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly >reorganize the OSI licensing pages > > > >"Lawrence Rosen" <[email protected]> writes: > >>Karl, lest you mistakenly conclude that I support this proposal, I > >>attach a private email I sent to Luis this weekend. I'm not going > >>public yet, because I hope there is some chance still to avoid > >>resurrecting this entire argument again and avoid having to convince >an > >>unsuspecting public that OSI's popularity list is useless for any > >>analytical purposes. But I will try my best to do that if OSI >continues > >>on this path without a valid intellectual basis for its list. Do you >really need that? > >> > > > >>Feel free to copy the OSI board. > > > >I'm so definitely, certainly, positively not interested in having >off-list conversations about this process. It's hard enough keeping >up with the on-list stuff! :-) > > > >Thanks, > >-Karl > > > >**************** > > > >Here’s the email I sent to Luis: > > > >[off-list] > > > >Hi Luis, > > > >I appreciate that you're trying to do good here on an issue that has >lingered for a long time, but I'll fight OSI all the way on this. Any >attempt to list such licenses as CDDL or MPL 2.0 while omitting >OSL/AFL/NOSL 3.0 will be met with resistance. There is FAR more use of >my licenses than CDDL or some others. MPL 2.0 is mostly Mozilla, which >has some "friends" on the OSI board. > > > >This selection process is riddled with cronyism, misinformation, and >unnecessary politics. Not good at all!!!! > > > >/Larry > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Karl Fogel [mailto:[email protected]] > >>Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:14 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly > >>reorganize the OSI licensing pages > ><snip> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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
