On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: > Chad Perrin scripsit: > >> Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really >> a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a >> requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OSI? > > Clearly the latter. The text should be adjusted accordingly, as there are > several reasons why a license might be Open Source but not OSI-approved: > > 1) It has not been submitted for certification in proper form. > > 2) The Board considers it a vanity license. > > 3) The Board believes that it substantially duplicates an existing license. > >> It seems that there is a distinction to be made between "OSI-approved" >> and merely "open source", where "open source" would *by definition* >> (tautologically, it seems) be any license that conforms to the definition >> of open source. > > Exactly.
I've got a partial draft response to Chad drafted, but John covers most of it - the general point is definitely well-taken. I'm about to leave on vacation, so am a bit crunched for time- if someone would propose an alternate wording, I'd appreciate it. Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
