[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Possible alternative was: Re: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Open Source License (ARL OSL) Version 0.4.1

John Cowan cowan at ccil.org
Fri Mar 17 01:34:30 UTC 2017

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:

I'd think the only ones who get to apply the "Open Source" label to
> licenses would be the OSI. Fedora's opinion is that CC-0 meets the OSD.

"Open source", whether upper or lower case, is not a protected mark of the
OSI or anyone else.  When someone misuses it, we generally ask them nicely
not to (if we find out about it).  But only "OSI Certified" is or was

In particular, if for example a license were legally equivalent to the BSD
license, the OSI would probably not certify it, but it would still be an
open source license.

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos        --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem           --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
  deity'll donate doughnuts                   --English version by Muke
God gave gums; God'll give granary            --Version by Mat McVeagh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170316/c0aebc75/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list