Karl Fogel wrote: 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.
LER recommends that this is what the OSI landing page ought to say: ************ An alphabetical listing of all Currently Approved open source licenses is shown here. <link> The Currently Approved list excludes those licenses that have been replaced with more recent versions (in which case the most recent version has been listed above), or that have been deprecated by their original authors. A list of Replaced and Deprecated licenses can be found here. <link> Several organizations maintain lists of licenses that they prefer to be used for contributions or that they recommend for their community participants. Among these Preferred lists are the following: · Free Software Foundation (FSF) <link> · OSI License Proliferation Committee Report <link> [to be updated someday?] · Apache Software Foundation <link> · Eclipse Foundations <link> · Google/Android <link> · Mozilla Foundation <link> · Linux Foundation <link> · Open Solaris <link> · Etc. Various organizations identify Popular open source licenses based on surveys and other criteria. These lists are available on their websites: · Black Duck Software <link> · Etc.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
