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

[Luis Villa]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> 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.

I've got a partial draft response to Chad drafted, but John covers
most of it - the general point is definitely well-taken. I'm about to
leave on vacation, so am a bit crunched for time- if someone would
propose an alternate wording, I'd appreciate it.

Luis