Free Software Licenses not approved as Open Sourse License

[online allthetime]

+1
would be great to know where the OSI stands in this regard.
--
/a

On 4/21/06, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson at intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Laura Majerus wrote:
>
> > Recently, someone had asked whether interested parties who are not
> > stewards of the license can submit licenses for approval by OSI and
> the
> > answer at the time was "no."  OSI only approves licenses that are
> > submitted for approval by their stewards.
>
> We should have this discussion sooner or later, so let's try sooner.
> As everyone knows, FSF is in the process of revising GPL and LGPL.
> Also, everyone knows Richard Stallman's opinion of "open source"
> versus "free software."  I wouldn't dream of presuming to speak
> for Richard and the FSF, but I would be very surprised if they
> were to submit GPL/LGPL 3.0 to OSI for approval as "open source."
>
> If this assumption is correct, and if OSI strictly enforces the
> stewards-only policy Laura describes, that creates a highly awkward
> situation where two of the most important licenses
> wouldn't even be evaluated.
>
> Seemingly, something needs to give.
>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>