Three new proposed OSD terms
Alex Rousskov
rousskov at measurement-factory.com
Wed Mar 2 23:03:26 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), <nelson at crynwr.com> 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.
I think these three terms should _not_ be added to OSD for two reasons:
a) I do not see how these new terms will sufficiently reduce the number
of approved licenses long-term. We have almost 60 licenses now. In 10
years, we will probably have more than 75 licenses with or without the new
terms. If Open Source becomes more mainstream and software patents
survive, we will probably have more than 100 licenses, with or without the
new terms. In other words, the number of licenses will be "too large" even
if you weed out duplicates (rule #11 and #13). I am sure there will be
fewer licenses with the new terms in place, but there is really no
practical difference between having 100 licenses and 200 licenses!
[ Moreover, I doubt the new rules can reject 50% of new submissions;
humans, including lawyers, are very adaptive. ]
b) The proposed terms have nothing to do with Open Source Definition,
IMHO. Only the vague rule #12 is remotely related to what Open Source
means or should mean. However, as others pointed out, it is not clear
whether it is possible to write a clear, simple, and understandable legal
document these days. Let the market forces decide what is clear and simple
enough. Obviously, OSI board should not certify licenses they cannot
understand (with or without the new rules).
HTH,
Alex.
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list