Luis Villa scripsit: > Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have rejected, > including the rationales for rejection. Your list would presumably be a > subset, as some licenses might have been submitted and rejected without a > later, false claim to being open source.
I think publishing such a list would be a supremely bad idea. Our business is to approve licenses, not to disapprove them. If someone is using the term "open source" for a non-certified license, we should privately try to persuade them to stop doing so, and (if feasible) get their license certified or change licenses. If they are using the term in bad faith, as shown by earlier attempts, we should ignore them -- we don't have proprietary rights in the term, after all. -- There is / One art John Cowan <[email protected]> No more / No less http://www.ccil.org/~cowan To do / All things With art- / Lessness --Piet Hein _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
