Modifying existing licenses in minor ways

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:24:27AM -0800, Adam C. Engst (ace at xns.org) wrote:
> At 6:13 PM -0800 11/28/00, kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >It's been part of my argument with Larry Rosen WRT the Jabber License.  While
> >I agree with him in being able to move beyond the current state of art
> >in licensing, rather than being stuck with static terms dictated by
> >another party, I still have very strong misgivings over license
> >proliferation.
> >
> >Fortunately, the practice appears to be fading somewhat, and projects
> >which have adopted distinctive licenses are either fading or adopting
> >one of the emergent standards (GPL, BSD/MIT, or MozPL).
> 
>  From this, it would seem that you're saying my concern over making 
> necessary modifications to a license is well-founded, and most open 
> source projects are dealing with it by adopting one of the licenses 
> that explicitly tries to be general. I guess my question remains, 
> though. If you do need to make any changes at all, is it true that 
> OSI needs to re-certify the result?

OSI would have to answer that, my understanding is that they do.
However, for modifications which are restricted to simple substitutions
in well-established licenses, this review is easier, if not expedited.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>     http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
 Evangelist, Zelerate, Inc.                      http://www.zelerate.org
  What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?      There is no K5 cabal
   http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/        http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20001129/7c5de9d8/attachment.sig>