Proposal: criteria for license approval

David Barrett dbarrett at
Thu Sep 1 15:55:14 UTC 2005

+3, clearly.

Alex Bligh wrote:
> I hereby propose the following.
> a) Applications for license approval should be processed by the OSI board
>   in a timely manner (with allowance for the fact it is a volunteer board),
>   against the criteria listed in the OSD and the published license approval
>   process ONLY. Evaluation should take into account community postings
>   to license-discuss, to the extent that they demonstrate conformance
>   or otherwise with these criteria. After evaluation, applications should
>   be told whether their license is approved, or whether it has been
>   rejected (and if so what criteria it breaches and why). Where rejection
>   is for a minor reason that would be remedied by an obvious drafting
>   change, the words of this drafting change should be passed on.
> b) Neither the above, nor the OSD, nor the license-approval process should
>   be changed without open and transparent discussion within the community.
> c) As a specific example of (b), the valid concerns of the board re license
>   proliferation should not impact on the approval or otherwise of licenses,
>   unless and until the results of the proliferation discussion process
>   have resulted in changes to (a), the OSD, or approval process in the
>   manner set out in (b) above. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph
>   should not be taken to prevent the OSI from recommending use or non-use
>   of particular approved licenses.
> Before anyone jumps in and says it, I am quite aware that the OSI is not
> a democracy, and it is controlled by its board, not an ill-constituted
> mailing list. However, its validity as an organization rests on having
> community support. Whatever people's views on the OVPL, I believe there
> is a strong consensus on the above points.
> So please reply +1 / -1 to each of the above.
> Clearly I'm for all 3.
> Alex

More information about the License-discuss mailing list