prabhaka at apple.com
Fri Sep 2 04:02:36 UTC 2005
On Sep 1, 2005, at 8:19 PM, Russell Nelson wrote:
> The very most basic question (which you don't ask) is this:
> Does OSI certify all licenses that comply with the OSD?
> Does OSI certify all good licenses that comply with the OSD?
> In other words, do we take into account the interests of the
> community? Or do we act as a conditional rubber stamp -- conditional
> *only* upon compliance with the OSD?
Well put. Thanks for asking. :-)
> I suggest that the answer is not obvious. It's not obvious what the
> right answer is, and it's not obvious what the community wants us to
> do. Ian Lance Taylor was complaining earlier that we don't ask people
> questions. Presumably, now that I'm asking, he'll have an opinion
I completely agree that this is the vital question. The thing that
I personally found frustrating was the sense that this question had
*already* been answered, but we (the list) hadn't been told exactly
what the answer was. I am glad we're able to hash this out in the
open, and I commend you for that.
However, part of the answer *does* seem obvious. I am NOT a layer,
and I don't speak for anyone but me, but my understanding is that the
*legal* obligation of the OSD trademark is that the OSI *must*
eventually certify all qualifying licenses that are submitted. Is
that true, or isn't it?
My personal preference is that we (this list, representing the OSI)
provide *recommendations* for good drafting procedures and non-
duplicativity, but always be clear that these are not
*requirements*. I suspect it is the confusion between those two
terms that has been the source of much angst.
That is, if someone submits a valid but ill-written license, we could
an should provide *suggestions* for improvement. But, whenever -
they- feel they'd had enough suggestions and decide to submit it, we
would still approve it (if it conforms to the OSD). Let the license-
proliferation team sort it out after that -- that's *their* job, not
If that's NOT what you want to do, then I personally would feel much
more comfortable if the OSD was amended to reflect what the hard
criteria actually *are*, because as it is now the additional 'soft'
constraints far from transparent.
-- Ernie P.
More information about the License-discuss