[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

[Lawrence Rosen]

Luis Villa asked:

Putting aside the specific basis for your objections for now, why are you
objecting now and not in the past five years this list has been in use? Is
there a particular change in the context that you think the new draft
language introduces, or...?

 

Luis, I have objected regularly and consistently to that particular list.
Look in the archives. I'm tired of OSI suggesting that it will take "another
five years" to simply get rid of it.  Replace it with something with meaning
and purpose. I've offered drafts of that improved categorization. Again,
look in the archives.

 

Or if you prefer not looking in the archives, charter a committee to address
the "recommended licenses" list and deal with the politics in public instead
of behind the OSI board's implied imprimatur. I will be pleased to address
Chuck Swiger's and other's comments about how to craft a valuable list in a
separate thread after OSI accepts the need to do so and stops propagating
licensing nonsense.

 

/Larry

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Office: 707-485-1242

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luis Villa [mailto:luis at tieguy.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:02 AM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize
the OSI licensing pages

 

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Lawrence Rosen <
<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Luis Villa writes:

>> The following Open Source licenses are popular, widely used, or have 

>> strong communities:

> 

> As long as that list remains, I will object. It is inaccurate, 

> incomplete, misleading, subject to cronyism and personal bias by 

> members of the OSI board of directors, and does not reflect the actual 

> importance or uses of those licenses.

 

Putting aside the specific basis for your objections for now, why are you
objecting now and not in the past five years this list has been in use? Is
there a particular change in the context that you think the new draft
language introduces, or...?

 

Luis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120604/cfb07fb1/attachment.html>