cowan at ccil.org
Thu Apr 5 15:49:26 UTC 2007
Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> I know you served on the License Proliferation Committee, but perhaps
> (because hardly anybody's been listening for a while at OSI) you
> weren't fully aware of my public and private objections at the time
> to both the committee process and its result.
> Perhaps you allowed the other participants on the committee,
> a self-selected bunch of people some with their own corporate or
> business motivations, to convince you that open source licenses are
> all about "ecological niches" and "social purposes," or about who's
> "winning"--just so they could get their own licenses on the approved
That's definitely not the case; the language I used was my own.
In addition, I did my best to ensure (though not immediately --
I had to think the problem through) that the list was a classification,
not a stamp of approval or disapproval. Someone will still need
to do that work, but it surely won't be the same people -- a committee
for deliberation is one thing, a committee for action quite another.
> Because other participants on the committee talked to me, I know that
> the decisions of the committee were political compromises just to
> get some kind of agreement to demonstrate that OSI could "solve the
> license proliferation problem" (whatever that meant!).
True. "Nothing is more sacred to a secular age than a well-crafted
> I also know that there was no legal analysis of any of the licenses
> on the list to determine which had current value under the law and
> which are obsolete licenses from our distant past.
Also true, though I wouldn't call any license obsolete. Some are less
useful going forward than others.
> You're talking pseudo-law, utterly irrelevant to the choice or
> understanding of FOSS licenses.
I'm not talking law *at all*.
> One of the guiding principles in recent years for OSI's approval
> of open source licenses has been the demonstration of uniqueness. I
> long ago demonstrated that on this list for the companion OSL and AFL
> 3.0 licenses.
Absolutely true from a legal point of view.
> Placing AFL 3.0 on a "redundant" list is just plain wrong.
It reflects realities beyond the legal, as I said in my last post.
Not to perambulate John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
the corridors http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
during the hours of repose
in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
More information about the License-discuss