FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

[Danese Cooper]

In our experience, if we can get someone who is *actually* using a  
given license to work with us we stand a much better chance of  
working through the issues towards satisfactory resolution in favor  
of true Open Source.  This process typically involves some back  
channel education and a lot of public discussion.  There are indeed a  
number of companies using modified OSI-approved licenses requiring  
some level of attribution and calling their projects "open source"  
even though their license modifications appear to many of us to work  
against the Open Source Effect of code reuse and unintended  
consequences.  I can see only limited utility in debating and  
possibly indicting a proxy license when the folks facing the actual  
business case aren't representing their side of the question.  As I  
said in my blog, I think we have such a company nearly ready to  
submit their license and rationale and to enter into an active debate  
that might result in language everyone can agree upon.  Its been a  
tricky thing to get any of them to submit for fear of backlash.   
These are not mega-corporations using the licenses in question.  They  
are typically small and VC funded and they are pioneering a new  
business space.  The company we expect to get a license submission  
from isn't full of evil people trying to undermine Open Source, and  
it is the hope of the OSI Board that they would be treated fairly on  
this list.

Danese Cooper
http://danesecooper.blogs.com/divablog

On Nov 18, 2006, at 1:55 AM, David Woolley wrote:

>>
>> What is the point behind approving such a license if nobody is
>> planning to use it?
>
> My understanding of it was that several people were *already* using  
> and
> claiming it to be open source.  I believe the reason for submitting it
> was to get a definitive ruling that it didn't fit the open source  
> definition,
> however, it could also legitimise the several existing uses if it was
> actually accepted.
>
> If it turned out that it was acceptable with minor clarifications, the
> existing users might adopt those clarifications, although, personally
> I don't think it would be possible to make it acceptable without  
> fundamental
> changes.
>