[License-discuss] Fact-gathering on OSI-approved licenses

[Bruce Perens]

Pam,

I am actually more interested in the licenses that OSI has historically
rejected, and the reasons given when this has been archived.

For example, the BitMover license, which required that users connect to a
logging server operated by BitMover Inc. to log their usage, was rejected.
I'm not saying it should have been approved, but it is interesting in that
it did not require the transmission to the logging server of data processed
by the program, only the fact that such data was processed, and by whom.

This is from a long time ago and data may not have survived, and the main
complaint I heard was regarding the submitter's comportment rather than his
license, so the information might actually not be that useful in this case.
But it would be interesting to see.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:14 PM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.chestek at opensource.org> wrote:

>  Hi everyone,
>
> We've had a lot of discussion about the attributes of open source
> licenses and what is and isn't acceptable. I thought historical data on
> approved licenses might prove valuable, or at least interesting. I
> prepared a spreadsheet that lists all the OSI-approved licenses, with
> columns for some attributes that have been heavily discussed recently.
> It is at
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VVaSoVPmRa7yY6SlI5mb72zqrnGpstMH5LBfNAKNIdc/edit?usp=sharing/edit?usp=sharing
>
> I'm hoping people will be interested in helping fill it out. I suggest
> as the first step that we take a look and see whether the headings are
> sufficiently clear and whether we should be recording any further
> information. My goal was to limit data collection to the current areas
> of discussion, not do a comprehensive review of all the possible
> variables in open source licenses. Column E was meant to capture the
> non-copyright, non-patent "yeah, that's ok" stuff that we commonly see
> in licenses and that isn't noteworthy. Once we've settled on the form we
> can start filling it in.
>
> I don't want the spreadsheet to be a place for arguing the merits, just
> a place for fact-gathering. I also don't know what will happen once we
> have gathering the information, but I do believe gathering the
> information is the first step.
>
> Thanks,
> Pam
>
> --
> Pamela Chestek
> Chair, License Review Committee
> Open Source Initiative
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190822/30591471/attachment-0001.html>