Three new proposed OSD terms
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
roddixon at cyberspaces.org
Thu Mar 3 18:51:39 UTC 2005
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> In fact, I would another point, along the lines of:
>> *The license must not be detrimental to the open source
>> community.* If in the judgement of OSI approving the license would
>> harm the open source community, OSI may deny certification.
> I think this, and two of the other three proposed OSD terms, are the wrong
> direction. Certification should not be so subjective - it will only lead
> to long, drawn out arguments over whether something is detrimental or not,
> or duplicative or not, and make it difficult to defend a decision as more
> than a value judgement. If we're defaulting to the value judgements of
> the OSI board or of the people here at license-discuss, we're much much
> closer to the peasants-with-pitchforks Robespierre-esque mis-ideal that
> our enemies love to malign us as.
> 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.
In my opinion, these are extremely thoughtful and helpful recommendations.
- Rod Dixon
More information about the License-discuss