License Proliferation Dissatisfaction
eugenew at starhub.net.sg
Mon Apr 23 02:47:42 UTC 2007
> We did not consider it
> practical to recommend licences that are rarely used, however sound
> their legal drafting may be.
From what I see, effectively the "recommendation" is just a placement
at the top category, according to whether the license is "popular and
widely used or with strong communities". I think Larry's gripe is that
"redundant with more popular licenses" is a negative recommendation, due
to the negative connotation.
Why not compromise with a "legally sound but less widely used licences"
category? That way users can more clearly decide if they want a license
whose enforcement and interpretation may have a precedent and be
established in a large community versus a license that is legally robust
on its own but without strong community use.
> If he can get the numbers up on his license, then we will certainly
> consider moving his license(s)s to the "Strong Communities" category.
To be fair, that becomes something of a Catch-22 situation: anyone who
wants to cite the OSI website when recommending the AFL has to explain
why they recommend it when the OSI considers it "redundant". This
imposes a barrier to its adoption, which in turn would make entry to the
"Strong Communities" category more difficult.
More information about the License-discuss