License List -- as of 9-11-00

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

To offer a slightly different perspective, I think it might be important to
recall that OSI strongly encourages the use of approved licenses. The
proliferation of widely divergent open source licenses might create as much
confusion in (or about) the open source community as misinformed
journalists. I would be reluctant to criticize OSI for not adding to this
confusion. As folks consider submitting a growing list of licenses for
approval, they might do better to evaluate what they want to accomplish by
issuing their particular  license, then consider whether a license on the
approved list meets those needs (...chances are the answer is yes).

Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University Law School - Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:weigel+ at pitt.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:41 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: License List -- as of 9-11-00
>
>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote:
>
> > Speaking only for myself, I think it unlikely that it was rejected.
> > The OSI board is a group of overworked volunteers (sound familiar?) and
> > things do get dropped on the floor from time to time.
>
> They are a group of overworked volunteers who claim to represent the
> wider open source community.  In addition to 'dropping things on the
> floor,' they also occasionally make calls contrary to the stated
> opinions of the wider open source community - and when they do so, they
> do so quietly so that no one notices.
>
> After the on-going confusion as to the OSI Certified(sm) nature of
> Darwin (and the qualifying nature of the APSL 1.2), which resulted in a
> misinformed journalist lambasting Apple for not acting in good faith in
> proclaiming Darwin as open source, I think it is necessary to do two
> things: stick to the lists published on opensource.org as 'OSI
> Certified,' and light a fire under the hiney of whoever's
> responsibility it is to update that list.
>
> At this point, there are two kinds of licenses not included - licenses
> that someone hasn't 'gotten to,' and licenses which don't qualify.  As
> long as there is such confusion, the OSI can avoid discussing its
> decisions to exclude licenses (because they might be on the todo list),
> and the wider open source community can be misled.
> --
>  Matthew Weigel
>  Research Systems Programmer
>  weigel+ at pitt.edu
>
>