OSI, licenses, MPL

[Michael Stutz]

Roland Turner wrote:

> Yes, it's Netscape's license, but the only uses of the word Netscape
> (and other protected marks) are to identify who can release new
> versions of the license (in the same sense that the Gnu [L]GPL
> mentions Gnu/FSF) and to make clear that marks are not being
> licensed.

Forbidding modification of the license itself seems to make sense --
you want parties to use _this one license_, not encourage a thousand
or more incompatible derivatives be written and adopted instead. So
you define the parameters of your open source corpus with a set of
terms outlined in the proprietary, closed-source document of the
license proper.

But this is also a problem with the current open source licensing
model. What do you do when you find a bug in the license you want to
use, and the steward of the license is unable or unwilling to change
it?