Three new proposed OSD terms
alex at alex.org.uk
Wed Mar 2 16:11:16 UTC 2005
--On 02 March 2005 10:09 -0500 Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> 11. *The license must not be duplicative.* That is, it is up to the
> submitter to demonstrate that the license solves a problem not
> sufficiently addressed by an existing certified license.
> Certification may be denied to any submitted license, even a
> technically OSD- conformant license, if OSI deems it duplicative.
This seems a little ill-defined. For instance, is a license which
is identical to an existing license apart from a jurisdiction clause
duplicative? There are all sorts of reasons why (say) non-Californian
companies might not want exclusive jurisdiction in (say) California USA.
On the other hand, clearly no license will be entirely duplicative
(i.e. verbatim identical) because noone would bother to apply.
I would suggest this is rephrased as something like "No new license
shall be approved which is similar to an existing license unless
the submitter can show substantive differences between the new
license and each similar existing license."
More information about the License-discuss