license name arrogance Re: Academic Free License

[Bjorn Reese]

Andy Tai wrote:

> Now, Mr. Rosen prefers to name his licenses in a
> grandiose fashion.  "Academic Free License" and "Open
> Software License."  These give the impression that
> such licenses are official or superior in some way, as
> endorsed officially by the OSI. These licenses are
> better named (for example) "Rosenlaw Academic Free
> License" and "Rosenlaw Open Software License."  The

The other licenses were created for specific projects. The AFL and
OSL are not, so I think that it is perfectly fine to give them
generic names (and yes, they are superior in some way.)

> OSI should encourage specific license names unless a
> license is a product of wide community consent. Just a
> suggestion.

How can a license gain such consent prior to having a name, and
if it already had a well-known name would it be wise to change it?

The only concern I have about the names is that Free and Open seems
to be switched. The OSL is based on reciprocity, which is usually
associated with Free Software, and the AFL is not, which is usually
associated with Open Source (especially when seen in the light of
RMS's rejection of Open Source.)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3