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

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:20 -0300
"Bruno F. Souza" <bruno at javaman.com.br> wrote:

> Sidestepping the whole discussion around standard's bodies and other
> meanings of "standard", when I read Luis' FAQ entry, the use of the
> term "standard" is really confusing...

I think so too now, in light of this thread at least. 

> The entry seems to equate "standard" with "OSI-approved": 
> 	"Using standard, OSI-approved open source licenses"
> 	"standard licenses that comply with the Open Source
> Definition" "standard licenses that have been approved by the Open
> Source Initiative" "Using standard, widely-used terms that comply
> with the Open Source Definition"
> 
> It has nothing to do with popularity or license proliferation,
> because "standard" is not used in this way in the text. More
> specifically: "Using standard licenses [...] particularly those
> licenses that are widely-used" (for me this clearly states that all
> approved licenses are "standard", not only the widely-used ones)
> 
> It also opposes "standard" with "custom" or "new":
> 	"reducing [...] legal errors that can be present in new,
> "custom" licenses."
> 
> And some times, it seems to be one thing more then OSI-approved:
> 	"using a well-known license that is standard in the community
> *and* [OSI-]approved" (emphasis added)
> 
> So, I think the text is really calling for a less confusing term, and
> I think "OSI-approved" is probably what we want here. After all,
> talking about the advantages of the OSI-approved licenses for
> projects, developers and managers is a great way to promote OSI. 

I'll pick on the Motosoto License here since someone else brought it up.

If "OSI-approved" is what is meant by "standard", then these arguments
get much weaker. There is much to be said for the fact that the
Motosoto License was OSI-approved. But any new project resurrecting the
Motosoto License today would not inspire confidence or increase trust
as a result of that license choice. (Maybe for a legacy project it
would be different.)  

To make use of another use of the word "standard", OSI approval
signifies to me that a license meets minimum standards of
acceptability, minimum standards of conformance to FLOSS norms, and I
believe this is true of the Motosoto License. But only some OSI-approved
licenses go further and inspire for me the kind of trust and confidence
spoken of in Luis's draft FAQ entry. (For me, these are not limited to
the licenses the OSI has recommended as popular or widely-used.)
 

 - RF