On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:35:20 -0700 Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Might be a good idea to finally start the list of non-open > > > licenses > > someone > > > suggested a few months ago ;) > > > > Oh, that is *such* a good idea. > > > > This is the "list of licenses that people often mistake for being > > open source, or whose authors claim are open source, but are > > actually not or at least have not been evaluated by the OSI", right? > > > > Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have > rejected, including the rationales for rejection.
Excellent idea. > 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. There are also licenses that are clearly (to me) open source but which have not been and are unlikely ever to be evaluated by the OSI. But there is a separate category of licenses that are claimed to be open source by their license stewards (at least implicitly in characterizing the software as open source) but have not been submitted for approval -- TrueCrypt is presumably an example of this. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
