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

[Chad Perrin]

I'll try to avoid the minor tempest about the list that has nothing to do
with the proposal for a new format for a landing page, and just ask a
question:

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:35:06PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
>     Open Source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source
> Definition and have been approved through the Open Source Initiative's
> license review process.

Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really
a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a
requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OSI?
It seems that there is a distinction to be made between "OSI-approved"
and merely "open source", where "open source" would *by definition*
(tautologically, it seems) be any license that conforms to the definition
of open source.

If nothing else, I'd think that avoiding a clear statement of approval as
a requirement to be called "open source" might head off many objections
over years to come and/or declining respect for the OSI as the entity
responsible for defining open source.  As things currently stand, some
corporations and individuals question whether a license that makes source
available solely for review is "open source", and a reference to the
provenance of the term "open source" and the definition maintained by OSI
is only sometimes effective at getting them to shut up.

Adding a statement to the effect that the OSI is the sole gatekeeper of
open-source-ness might prove counterproductive in the future because it
effectively tells people that the "definition" is no longer really a
definition, and serves solely as one of two criteria for OSI favor -- the
other possibly being fancy or whim.  Whether that is how the OSI conducts
itself or not may then become irrelevant to the general public perception
of the matter.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]