Question on OSI position on BSD/MIT licenses

[Chuck Swiger]

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.