[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list [was Re: [License-review] For Legacy Approval: LBNL BSD]
Stephen Paul Weber
singpolyma at singpolyma.net
Sun May 19 05:29:16 UTC 2019
> Saying "OSI's list isn't very useful in contracts or scanners" does carry an implicit question that I've probably also said explicitly on occasion: if people don't, by and large, refer exactly to the OSI list in their documents and scanners, then what is it for?
I frequently see thing very *like* what you describe, but less legally formal than a contract (such as submission policies to contests or app-store-like aggregators, etc) say "submissions must be under an OSI-approved license" and similar words. Occasionally in an effort to seem inclusive policies will say "OSI or FSF approved" or some such, but I've never been under the impression that this was because either list if deficient, but rather that the policy didn't want to "choose sides".
More information about the License-discuss