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

[Bruce Perens]

On 06/05/2012 09:22 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> [I’ll add something now about MPL 2.0: It was submitted for approval 
> in early December of last year and approved within a few months, as it 
> should have been; it is a good license. Yet it appears already on the 
> list of OSI-approved licenses” as “popular, widely used, or have 
> strong communities.” Is it because there are defenders of the MPL 2.0 
> on the OSI board?  Is that honest, fair, unbiased and legitimate?]
>
If MPL 2.0 was applied to Mozilla foundation software, it would 
immediately qualify as "popular, widely used, or have strong communities".

There are some absolutely horrid licenses that have strong communities. 
A certain font license comes to mind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120605/5c6be98b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120605/5c6be98b/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120605/5c6be98b/attachment.p7s>