[License-discuss] Rejected license list [was Re: TrueCrypt license (not OSI-approved; seeking history, context).]

[Ben Tilly]

We don't have proprietary rights.  But a "name and shame" list would
dissuade people from diluting the term.  And there is no shortage of
organizations who would like to dilute it.


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Luis Villa scripsit:
>
> > Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have rejected,
> > including the rationales for rejection. Your list would presumably be a
> > subset, as some licenses might have been submitted and rejected without a
> > later, false claim to being open source.
>
> I think publishing such a list would be a supremely bad idea.  Our
> business is to approve licenses, not to disapprove them.  If someone is
> using the term "open source" for a non-certified license, we should
> privately try to persuade them to stop doing so, and (if feasible)
> get their license certified or change licenses.  If they are using
> the term in bad faith, as shown by earlier attempts, we should ignore
> them -- we don't have proprietary rights in the term, after all.
>
> --
> There is / One art                      John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
> No more / No less                       http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> To do / All things
> With art- / Lessness                     --Piet Hein
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20131014/b241d8f3/attachment.html>