[License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on "why standard licenses"?

[Simon Phipps]

I don't think that's the point of the entry Luis is constructing. He's
using the word "standardized" as a term of speech rather than as a
technical term.

Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open source
licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about (I believe that
text used to be on the home page).

S.


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> How about "OSI Approved" license? That's what you do.
>
>
> Simon Phipps <webmink at opensource.org> wrote:
>
> Care to propose an improvement?
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lrosen at rosenlaw.com <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>wrote:
>
>> "Standard" is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
>> standards organization.  Larry
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Luis Villa
>> Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: License Discuss
>> Subject: [License-discuss] FAQ entry (and potential website page?) on
>> "why standard licenses"?
>>
>> Hi, all-
>>
>> A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
>> explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
>> basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
>>
>> Draft FAQ entry addressing the question is here:
>> http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Projects/Why+standardized+licensing%3F
>>
>> There is also an incomplete potential more-than-FAQ answer that could be
>> put somewhere on opensource.org. The more I think about it, the more I
>> think the FAQ may be sufficient, but I'd be curious what others here think
>> and whether something longer is worthwhile.
>>
>> Feedback is probably better on-wiki but the list is fine too. :)
>> Luis
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20140427/df568873/attachment.html>