<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText3571 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText91923 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>As long as the licenses are permissive and compatible then license proliferation should have little impact on code reuse.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>The only time I've seen issues with code reuse in the open source world (for license reasons anyway) is when a permissively licensed project notices some code from a copyleft licensed project and goes "Huh...that would have been nice to reuse...I guess I need to go reinvent the wheel".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>From the perspective of lots of permissive variants, which already exist but are not OSI approved, it would be nice to have the assurance that a license really IS a permissive variant and not something else.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>That does imply that the OSI would still need to do careful vetting of license variant submissions but in the end it shouldn't really increase proliferation in terms of use because most folks are going to use the top level license that best fits their needs. Not some strange/outdated variant X unless compelled to for other reasons.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nigel</FONT></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tue 10/16/2007 6:52 PM<BR><B>To:</B> License Discuss<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Chris Travers wrote:<BR>>>Encouraging projects to change to an approved license is a useful<BR>>>way of reducing license proliferation.<BR><BR>> I don't think that point is going to go anywhere.<BR><BR>You're missing the point. It already has. Project developers /already/<BR>look to OSI when they choose a license. OSI wants to limit the number<BR>of items they choose from. The more licenses that are<BR>approved/certified/etc. the more they have to choose from. This results<BR>in more license proliferation, and less code reuse.<BR>> I personally do not htink that the OSI can at once try to equate lack of<BR>> approval with a lack of being open soruce and at the same time tackle<BR>> the license prolieration question as you have described. These are mutually exclusive goals and at best we can only<BR>> seek balance.<BR><BR>OSI officially saying unapproved license are "Open<BR>Source/OSI-Certified/OSI Class X" will not help license proliferation.<BR>It will be easier to get a new license certified...so there will be more<BR>new licenses.<BR><BR>Matt Flaschen<BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>