Proposal: criteria for license approval
dbarrett at quinthar.com
Thu Sep 1 15:55:14 UTC 2005
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.
More information about the License-discuss