[License-discuss] The per se license constructor

[Bruce Perens]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
wrote:

> I really don’t want to relitigate this
>

Yeah. Before anyone misunderstands, I am not shouting at Nigel. I AM NOT
SHOUTING :-)

a) the terms that were deemed questionable existed in the already approved
> 1.3 and
>

The problem here is that OSI has approval regret. I wasn't there, but I get
the impression there was a fight around the decision, and now they have
regret that they approved at all and do not want to go one step farther. I
can't blame them. I really don't like some of the terms.


> whether the government had need to retain those terms to follow regulations
>

Yes, I am finding it difficult to believe that the government really does
need those terms to follow regulations. I haven't seen evidence. NASA, and
lots of other agencies, use other Open Source licenses with impunity.

and that the terms made the license less reusable as a general purpose
> license.
>

No, I don't believe this is the problem. The problem is that the terms do
pernicious things like attempt to limit the public domain to national
boundaries with contractual terms. It's a terrible precedent for OSI to
approve.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190317/6ecbd0bb/attachment.html>