Three new proposed OSD terms

[Ernest Prabhakar]

On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> I think OSI should leave the certification criteria as they are - 
> even consider taking a fresh look at the existing ones to ask if 
> they're needed.  I think OSI could very well create a gold standard 
> list of licenses that meet additional criteria and are "recommended". 
>  It might take some effort to properly template-ize them, and to 
> provide a chart showing which licenses allow sublicensing under which 
> other licenses.  It might even be useful to attempt to provide 
> standard language for certain upcoming requirements, like patent 
> defense clauses.  All of which is more work than just inventing a few 
> new rules, admittedly.

Of all the proposals, I like Brian's the best.  If the real goal is to 
encourage people to reuse existing licenses rather than make new ones, 
I'd rather invest the effort in making it *easier* to the do the right 
thing (use a Recommended, Templateable License) rather than make it 
harder to do the 'wrong' thing (write a new license).

Yeah, it is much more work, but it is more worth doing (I'm happy to 
help, as a private citizen).   Otherwise, I fear we'll end up diluting 
a highly-regarded objective standard (the OSD) with subjective 
administrative criteria, which is a path I don't want to go down.

-- Ernie P.