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

[John Cowan]

Chad Perrin scripsit:

> 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?

Clearly the latter.  The text should be adjusted accordingly, as there are
several reasons why a license might be Open Source but not OSI-approved:

1) It has not been submitted for certification in proper form.

2) The Board considers it a vanity license.

3) The Board believes that it substantially duplicates an existing license.

> 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.

Exactly.

-- 
Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes:                    John Cowan
I admire him, I freely admit it,               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and when his time comes I shall                cowan at ccil.org
buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.