[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process
andrew.dema at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 20:51:32 UTC 2020
There are plenty of legal professionals on this list that can most likely
write a far better rule/requirment, I personally would not throw in the X
projects requirement as I think that changes the rules significantly from
what they are today and would require a lot more input/consideration then
simply "be professional, no mix and match licenses". approach despite that
being the "silent" rule in L-D and L-R.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:28 PM jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2020/08/25 17:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> > I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
> > requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with
> > express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
> > that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI
> > License to exist which fills a need not addressed by previously approved
> > licenses.
> Forget the natural person/legal expert whatever aspect.
> Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each
> other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the
> license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "x" is an arbitrary
> number, the idea is that by being used, there is a demonstrated real
> world use with professional intent for a usable OSI license which fills
> a previously unaddressed need with the OSI approved licence range.
> Phrasing obviously needs a lot of work:
> * _NASA Open Source License 5.0_ shouldn't be dismissed, simply due to
> NASA being the sole user of the proposed licence;
> * I don't know what a good number for "x" is. Something between 2 and a
> baker's dozen seems right to me.
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss