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

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Nov 12 17:03:58 UTC 2012

Thirded.  The alphabetical list is the one I use most.  I find the
category list mostly useless.

Frankly, if you aren't going to tackle the categorization issue then I'd
just update the links to insure they are accurate and leave it alone
because you're going to have contention over what belongs in that list of
"popular, widely used or have strong communities" on the revised landing

Saying "categorization is off topic" while essentially moving what is most
likely to be the most contentious aspect of categorization to the top
level license landing page is simply odd.  The licenses in that top list
will be the tacitly recommended licenses by the OSI and having an outdated
list there doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to the newcomer.

If you want to update main "Open Source Licenses" landing page that isn't
mostly blank with two links then I'd move some of the FAQ answers to the
landing page.  Discussion regarding what permissive and copyleft means
would be helpful for a newcomer.

If you really want to present a neutral "Popular/Widely Used/Strong" list
then use one developed from actual metrics of what is widely used.  The
OSRC one is the one I typically refer to.  You'd want to remove the
non-OSI approved licenses off that list.


If you don't like that data set then pick another comprehensive data set
to base the widely used list on.

- Nigel

On 11/11/12 10:22 PM, "Gwyn Murray" <gwyn at mataulegal.com> wrote:

>Seconding Richard's comments regarding the usefulness of the alphabetical
>list here.
>On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 04:01:03PM -0800, Luis Villa wrote:
>>> 2. REVISE /LICENSES/ : The "Open Source Licensing" page (replacing the
>>> current http://opensource.org/licenses/)  would say (hopefully all
>>> changes self-explanatory):
>>> "
>>> Open source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source
>>> Definition[link] - in essence, they allow software to be used,
>>> modified, and redistributed without restriction.
>> I don't agree with the "in essence" part.
>>> * In the longer term, once Drupal is upgraded, it will likely make
>>> sense to generate http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and
>>> http://opensource.org/licenses/category programatically, rather than
>>> through the current manual listing, which is of course error-prone.
>>> (Some people have suggested doing away with the alphabetical list
>>> altogether, which I personally would be fine with.)
>> I've actually found the alphabetical list useful at times, FWIW.
>> - Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org

More information about the License-discuss mailing list