Richard Fontana scripsit: > But if a license *has* been rejected (in some official way -- does > this actually apply to any submitted license, historically?)
It doesn't, and it wouldn't make sense considering the OSI process. As a certifying organization, the OSI is reactive. We wait for someone to submit a license, and if we believe it meets the OSD and other criteria, we certify it. If not, we send it back to the submitter with the reasons we can't certify it. But the ball is always in the submitter's court: they are free to try again with a new version of the license at any time. It would not make sense to put every non-accepted version on a "hall of shame" list, particularly when it may have been quickly superseded by an acceptable draft. This is completely different from the FSF process. The FSF takes existing published licenses and rates them for conformity with the Four Freedoms (and also for GPL compatibility). They do this without waiting for submissions. Consequently, it makes sense for them to list both conforming and non-conforming licenses. -- John Cowan [email protected] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia. --blurb for Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
