On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 08:49:37PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > The justification for de-listing presently accepted licenses is that: > > 1. They are ambiguous or likely to perform in court in unexpected ways, should > they ever be litigated. And thus they are harmful to their users. De-listing > is > a prompt to the organization that originally created the license to replace it > with an accepted license or to submit a new version with greater legal > competence in its construction. These would be the "crayon" licenses, mostly, > those written without legal counsel. > > 2. They don't comply with the OSD and were accepted in error. > > 3. They are both redundant and rarely used. > > Those are the only justifications. You don't get to de-list something because > you don't like its politics.
In my view, Bruce's justification 2 is the only justification: the license does not comply with the OSD and was accepted in error. I don't believe it is practical for the OSI to assess Bruce's justification 1. As for Bruce's justification 3, I think the OSI does enough here in its efforts to classify already-approved licenses. I certainly agree with Bruce that de-listing cannot be for political reasons. The rationale must be somehow grounded in the OSD, much like approval of licenses. > I think you need to have a committee review a proposal to de-list, with > arguments from the submitter regarding the problems in the license, I agree with that. > and with > advice from an attorney on whether the suggested problems are really problems. I don't agree with this, since my view is that the OSD should be the basis for an argument for delisting, and you don't need to be, or to get, a lawyer to interpret the OSD (more precisely, lawyers and non-lawyers are equally competent to interpret the OSD). - Richard > > Thanks > > Bruce > > On 03/06/2013 08:23 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Richard Fontana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Frameworx license is one of those OSI-approved licenses that I > believe was approved "in haste". If OSI had such a procedure, I would > recommend that the Frameworx license be reviewed for de-listing. > > Any recommendations on what such a process would look like, Richard? > I'm not super-enthused about the idea, but don't want to rule out > anything without at least some discussion. > > Luis > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > > begin:vcard > fn:Bruce Perens > n:Perens;Bruce > org:Perens LLC > adr:1563 Solano Ave.;;PMB 549;Berkeley;CA;94707;USA > email;internet:[email protected] > title:Strategic Consultant > tel;work:+1-510-4PERENS (510-473-7367) > url:http://perens.com/ > version:2.1 > end:vcard > > _______________________________________________ > 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
