Fwd: OSI approves CPAL at OSCON 2007

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:
> 
>>A safe harbor term of "BSD but not the GPL" is not GPL compatible.
>>...but apparently "BSD but not the GPL" can be an OSI approved
>>license, since the approval can go with the safe-harbor interpretation
>>of "oh, it's the BSD."
> 
> 
> Licence intercompatibility is not a requirement of approval.  OSD
> compliance is.  By your remark above, the Apache licence shouldn't
> have been approved because rms said it wasn't compatible with GPL (V2).
> So the Apache licence wasn't open-source?

Pay attention, eh?  That is a stupid strawman, and I think you need to
be more careful how you elided my message.

My point is about trademark dilution and confusion, not GPL compatibility.

If you have a license with terms fitting the description of:
	[Restrictive Non-OSD Compliant Terms]
	OR (Safe Harbor = BSD but not the GPL)

the whole license gets OSI certified?

What does the OSI-certified mark describe?  The license, or the safe
harbor?  Why certify the license when only the safe harbor is what
passes?