Official License Anti-Proliferation policy?
prabhaka at apple.com
Tue Apr 12 16:53:30 UTC 2005
On Apr 11, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Laura Majerus wrote:
> While I don't yet know exactly what the license proliferation
> committee will recommend to the board about tiering overall, I do
> know that the Gpl will not be placed in a non-recomended tier. No
> I personally think we need a word instead of 'deprecated' by the
> way because it has some negative meanings in the non-technical
> world. 'Not recomended anymore' is closer to our intent.
If I understand the category correctly, I don't mind the term
deprecated; perhaps 'legacy' would also work. For example, now that
APSL 2.0 is out, I would be perfectly fine if APSL 1.0/1.1/1.2 were
considered deprecated (though since there's a trivial upgrade, maybe
However, we periodically had requests like "This open source project
has been around so long we can't contact the original authors to
relicense it, but we need OSI approval to use it." Licenses like
that, which nobody intends to be used by *new* projects -- and nobody
cares if we diss -- seem fine as deprecated.
Of course, if the OSI tries to deprecate a license that some of us
think are still viable (like, say MPL :-), that could get ugly...
> It's impossible to opine on whether licenses we haven't seen are
> duplicative. Sorry. But the three criteria are for license
> approval going FORWARD. We're not going to apply them retroactively.
Thanks for clarifying that, it simplifies things enormously.
> Laura Majerus
> OSI Director of Legal Affairs
Laura, Russ: So, can we get an official statement about whether this
list/committee (license-discuss) is still in existence, or whether it
has been superseded by this rules change? Or, do we need to "re-up"
if we want to play in the new regime?
-- Ernie P.
More information about the License-discuss