[License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Mon Jun 3 21:00:03 UTC 2019
Richard Fontana wrote:
> FWIW the Fedora Project has identified OSI-approved licenses it believes
do not meet the Free Software Definition (most of these, but I think not
all, are based on the FSF's own judgments).
FWIW, I am intentionally NOT a member of FSF nor a supporter of their
license judgments. Fedora Project can of course do what it wants, but please
don't foist FSF "software freedom" judgments on "open source principles"
honored by OSI.
Also FWIW, these are the "open source principles" that I wrote about in
Chapter 1 of my book, and that the Prentice Hall graphic illustrator drew on
the cover like a legal parchment:
Open source licensees are free to:
* Use open source software for any purpose
* Make and distribute copies
* Create and distribute derivative works
* Access and use the source code
* Combine open source and other software
Also FWIW, Richard Stallman told me at that time that the only principle he
quarreled with was the fifth one. But that principle is fundamental to
guarantee a shared commons of open source software regardless of its
specific approved license! Only the GPL/AGPL are exceptions.
Argue against them if you wish, but at least these principles are more
meaningful than the phrase "software freedom."
From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 1:16 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:32 AM Smith, McCoy <
<mailto:mccoy.smith at intel.com> mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:
> [...] might there also be room for a "grandfathered, non-OSD compliant,
new works using this license are not Open Source" category?
> I'd be interested in volunteering if there ever were a committee to review
the current list to identify any listed licenses that do not (or might not)
conform to the OSD.
I would also be interested in such an effort. FWIW the Fedora Project has
identified OSI-approved licenses it believes do not meet the Free Software
Definition (most of these, but I think not all, are based on the FSF's own
License-discuss mailing list
<mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss