BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Chris Travers]

On 10/16/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:

>
> OSI is concerned with open source software, not open source licenses per
> se.  Most open source software uses an approved license.

Yet, some of the most commonly used projects are not.  For example, I
wasn't able to find the ISC license (which means that BIND, OpenBSD,
and more are not).

>
> > Telling projects to change their licenses is a nonstarter.
>
> Many projects have already started (and finished!) this process, so this
> is clearly false.  Encouraging projects to change to an approved license
> is a useful way of reducing license proliferation.
>

I don't think that point is going to go anywhere.  If I were a project
leader on a project with an unapproved permissive license, I would
avoid changing it simply because license stability is a good thing for
the community and hence its membership.  Hence I would probably avoid
changing such a license in the absence of a single party relinquishing
a restriction (i.e. dropping the advertising clause) or a clear and
present danger to the project.

At the moment, I don't want to cause any unnecessary trouble, so all I
am going to say is I am waiting to see how the OSI board addresses
this issue in determining whether to proceed with a formal request for
license approval.  I personally do not htink that the OSI can at once
try to equate lack of approval with a lack of being open soruce and at
the same time tackle the license prolieration question as you have
described.  These are mutually exclusive goals and at best we can only
seek balance.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers