[License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.

[Smith, McCoy]

FWIW:
The FSF doesn't technically "approve" of licenses (except, I suppose, they approve of their own licenses:  GPL, LGPL, AGPL).  On their website, they list two types of non *GPL licenses:  1)  "GPL-compatible free software licenses" and 2)  "GPL-incompatible free software licenses"
That's more than mere semantics -- they're not opining upon licenses other than as to whether they believe the terms of those licenses are consistent with the principals of "free software";   nevertheless, GPL compatibility is, to some, an important factor when choosing licenses.

-----Original Message-----
From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Solbu
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:18 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review.

On Wednesday 04 April 2012 20:40, Karl Fogel wrote:
>    "The FooBar license is not FSF-approved, so maybe it should be 
> listed
>    father down, since all other things being equal we don't want to 
> push
>    a non-FSF-approved license over approved ones".

Maybe there should be some kind if indication of FSF aproved licenses? 

I can think of two ways to do that: Listing them in a separate group, or some sort of icon or text next to the licenses.

--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site,   http://www.solbu.net
PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
********************************
Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på,
her skal du motstand finne.