Three new proposed OSD terms (next steps?)

Alex Bligh alex at
Fri Mar 4 10:09:04 UTC 2005

--On 03 March 2005 17:37 -0500 "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler at> 

> 1. What's needed is a list of criteria for a license to become a "Gold"
> standard.... as well as a good name for this subset.
> The original proposal of 3 items isn't a bad start,

I would suggest that the criteria w.r.t. "non-duplicative" should
be clarified. I see no problem with a license becoming "gold approved"
which is (say) entirely duplicative of a non-gold license, except
that it (say) is in template form so multiple people can use it - that
*discourages* proliferation of multiple similar non-gold licenses.
I think point re. duplication should be that each gold license should
contribute something substantially different from any other gold
license (not any other OSD approved license).


More information about the License-discuss mailing list