Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Russell Nelson]

Brian Behlendorf writes:
 > Yes.  And failure to certify it based on OSD conformance will mean that 
 > you'll have a bunch of people running around saying "this license really 
 > is Open Source - it conforms to the OSD - but OSI failed to certify it 
 > because <insert conspiracy theory here>".

That's the risk we take pushing back against license proliferation.
We've been taking it for years -- at least as long as Danese has been
on the board.  We didn't *start* license anti-proliferation efforts
just because Martin Fink made it a part of his keynote back in March.

 > Approve it and put it directly, immediately on your "not
 > recommended" list if OSI wants to pass judgement on its quality.

That's not the right thing to do.  The tiers are needed to deal with
existing licenses.  Licenses we haven't yet approved can be changed to
reduce their impact on open source users.

 > Not at all.  Assuming that the OVPL guys follow your requirements you'll 
 > be adding it to the list of licenses anyways, perhaps then later putting 
 > it on "not recommended".  The "stick" to use to limit the number of new 
 > licenses should not be certification - it should be getting placed on "not 
 > recommended".

I can't imagine any unproven new license entering on any tier other
than "not recommended".  Not much of a stick to pound people with if
they know they're going to get hit no matter what.

-- 
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |                       |     you know what not to do.