Three new proposed OSD terms
ken at bonsai.com
Wed Mar 2 16:52:53 UTC 2005
Russell Nelson wrote:
> We have always pushed people in this direction, but by adding these
> terms to the OSD, we will be proactively refusing licenses which don't
> meet these requirements.
> 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.
> 13. *The license must be reusable*. If the license contains proper
> names of individuals, associations, or projects, these must be
> incorporated by reference from an attachment that declares the
> names of the issuer and any other cited parties, and which can be
> modified without changing the terms of the license. As the sole
> exception, the license may name its owner and steward.
The reusability and non-duplicative requirements seem like a good idea
when applied to new licenses.
How should they apply to existing licenses which have received
significant contribution from the community over many years?
I guess I'm not very clear on how difficult it is to amend, replace or
augment an existing license; my impression is that it is quite
difficult. Didn't the Mozilla project have to find every contributor at
some point to make a license change?
If it is difficult to make such changes, should long-standing
open-source licenses be denied OSI certification merely because they are
duplicative or contain proper names?
Bonsai Software, Inc.
ken+5a4 at bonsai.com
Public Key: http://www.bonsai.com/ken/ken.asc
GPG Fingerprint: 851E 3B07 E586 0843 9434 5CC7 4033 3B9B 3F3F 9640
More information about the License-discuss