Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT licenses
Chuck Swiger
chuck at codefab.com
Mon Oct 1 17:19:19 UTC 2007
Chris Travers wrote:
> I have heard a position mentioned that a project is only "open source" if it
> uses an OSI approved license.
Sure-- for example, some open source software development systems like
SourceForge hold that position, at least with regard to which projects they
are willing to host.
To me, whether a project is "open source" depends on whether its license is
substantially compatible [1] with the OSI Open Source Definition; whether it
has actually gone through the approval process is not essential.
> I am wondering what this means relating to
> BSD-style licenses in particular. For example, is it the OSI's position
> that every BSD variant approved by the University of California other than
> the specific template listed on the web site is unapproved?
I don't believe the OSI board has taken such a position, no.
> Would OSI's position be that projects using unapproved variants on these
> licenses for historical reasons (PostgreSQL for example uses an old-style
> BSD license with the advertising clause dropped) are not open source?
That would be a silly position to take even if the 3-clause or "new" BSD
license wasn't already approved. Postgres is a fine database under an open
and permissive license; whether it has the OSI logo appear somewhere or not is
not a significant concern IMO....
--
-Chuck
[1]: I mention "substantially" because the OSD did not appear as perfect ab
initio and has improved over time; some licenses which were approved earlier
might not pass a review today.
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list