[License-discuss] OSI as guarantor for "or later" *GPL clauses
andrew.dema at gmail.com
Wed Oct 27 22:15:42 UTC 2021
Let me first state that I am merely a bystander and have no standing beyond
mere membership with the OSI or FSF. What you are asking for is a bit
difficult to deliver on for a couple reasons, not the least being that you
are asking on a public mailing list for something only the executive/staff
can answer. The OSI would be taking on a legal responsibility with both
requirements and responsibilities going forward as being a possible arbiter
of a license. I am not sure that the OSI necessarily does this with the
kind of executive "privilege" that the GPL confers. To my understanding
most licenses the OSI endorses are agreed through consensus and by real
use/legal opinions of the OSD. The other issue is that the GPL is a bit of
a hot potato and has a significant amount of politics surrounding it. The
OSI can't really be faulted for recognizing this and not necessarily
wanting to put themselves squarely in the center of a tough situation. This
is before you even begin to question the situation of which party gets to
decide whether the FSF or OSI will decide further license versions or how
the license deals with either party disagreeing with the other.
In truth I'm not even really sure where you would send this kind of request
to the OSI other than maybe it's Legal representative.
Just some thoughts to consider,
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:31 AM Enrico Zini <enrico at enricozini.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 04:53:09PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > Yes the idea is interesting.
> > > So you avoid giving a "blank check" to the FSF by giving another to
> > > I assume that both organisations are safe :-)
> > My intention is actually to avoid giving a blank check to any
> > organization: a new version of the GPL would have to be published by
> > FSF, but for it to be considered valid for my code it'd need to be OK-ed
> > by OSI.
> Hello, no reply after a month and a half.
> Would OSI be happy being used as such a guarantor, and if so, could some
> of you help wording the addition to the license statement?
> GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <
> enrico at enricozini.org>
> 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