[License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
cowan at ccil.org
Mon Feb 24 19:05:02 UTC 2020
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:19 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nweinsto at qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it
> wants to add licenses to the list of OSI-Approved Licenses.
Well, within the OSD, which is effectively our constitution. We have
amended the OSD in the past (by adding #10), but this is a very rare thing
> However, part of John’s objection seems to be the possibility that OSI is
> declaring these licenses are not “Open Source” at all.
Not exactly. I am saying that:
1) If we determine that an OSI-certified license is not OSD-compliant, we
2) If we determine that an OSI-certified license is OSD-compliant but
probably should not have been certified for other reasons, we think twice
about removing it because there may be third-party contractual obligations
that depend on its certified status.
To which I will add:
3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it
will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view, open-source
license certification is not a situation in which it is always better to
have a settled result than a just result.
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
Babies are born as a result of the mating between men and women,
and most men and women enjoy mating.
--Isaac Asimov in Earth: Our Crowded Spaceship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss