<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Just realized that my snip of the first quote from Richard in my previous e-mail had removed the first sentence, where Richard very clearly said "I guess I don't either," making it clear that the rest of the paragraph was something of a philosophical reflection about the list. It's also obviously not a statement from the OSI board, etc.,</div><div><br></div><div>My general questions about philosophy, goals, and mission are the same - as echoed in Luis' original message - but I did want to make the above clear for anyone that finds this thread in the archives later. Full original quote below:<br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:38 PM Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com">rfontana@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:56 PM Luis Villa <<a href="mailto:luis@lu.is" target="_blank">luis@lu.is</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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? Who is the
audience? What will they use the list for? I don't actually have good
answers to this question, so I'm not sure how OSI should answer it.<br>
<br>
I guess I don't either. To me, the approval process is (at least<br>
potentially) more important than the list itself. Through the analysis<br>
and critique and approval or rejection of submitted licenses, what<br>
we/the community means by "open source" (or "free software") becomes<br>
clearer. It's an act of self-definition. It's useful to me, because I<br>
work *within* open source, as I and others see it, and I need to<br>
understand the appropriate boundary between open source and non-open<br>
source for what I do to make sense. This suggests that the submitted<br>
licenses are mostly not themselves all that important, rather they<br>
serve as excuses to engage in some interesting philosophical<br>
deliberations over what open source actually is. (Maybe to the<br>
annoyance of a lot of license submitters.) However, occasionally a<br>
submitted license *is* important because it's being submitted by an<br>
influential person or entity,<br>
<br>
I recognize (and have in the past called attention to) the obvious<br>
problem with all this, that of relying on self-appointed authority<br>
figures to determine community standards. This is also why for all<br>
its faults the OSI license-review list is commendable, because in no<br>
other case is there a meaningful opportunity for *anyone* to<br>
participate in this policymaking exercise. The alternative is to rely<br>
on less transparent authorities (FSF, Debian, I guess Fedora should<br>
also be included here) or to express one's views in some isolated and<br>
less effectual manner. At least the existence of the OSI and its<br>
approved licenses helps avoid a situation of total chaos where no one<br>
agrees on what open source / free software means, or where the<br>
definition gets significantly watered down.<br>
<br>
> But it does seem likely that OSI should strive to have some lists
whose goal is explicitly about utility. (This does not imply that OSI
should abandon the current OSD; one can imagine many lists that are more
useful and still contain only OSD-compliant licenses. But one can also
imagine that an effort to create those lists might helpfully serve to
help refine the edge cases of what the OSD means in 2019 - perhaps
either knocking things off of, or adding to, the "main" list.)<br>
><br>
> Answering this question of utility is what drove the Blue Oak list.
It is not a challenge to OSI's authority, simply an actually useful
thing that I can refer to in contracts and scanner policies, which I
(and my clients/customers) need but OSI does not provide. We'll continue
to evolve the list with that goal of utility in mind. (For example,
we've had several people say they can't use it until the
groupings/labels are more informative/less vague. If the list isn't
pragmatically useful, it isn't fulfilling its purpose, so we'll probably
make them more informative.) If OSI obsoleted this effort by providing a
deliberately useful list of permissive licenses I'd be thrilled.<br>
<br>
I guess it hadn't occurred to me that for some the main purpose of<br>
these kinds of supposedly authoritative license lists might be use for<br>
contracts and scanning tools (since for me those are not really<br>
interesting or useful ways of making use of such lists). A more<br>
comprehensive list (like the Fedora list) can be useful if one is<br>
actually trying to create an open source product or distribution -- at<br>
least if one cares about accuracy and integrity in description of<br>
software as "open source". I think there may be a lot of people who<br>
aren't familiar with what's specifically on the OSI approved list and<br>
assume it is similarly comprehensive, or assume that open source<br>
software (that is, software generally and non-controversially<br>
considered to be open source) is composed from a license standpoint<br>
only from licenses in the OSI list.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>