<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/10/21 06:21, Enrico Zini wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20211027222140.vfbm6vdo5n2ljhpv@enricozini.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 06:15:42PM -0400, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> 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.
Yes, quite. I tried that first, and they told me to write here.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The board will quite properly want to see consensus before they
make a policy change, and presumably see it as the proponent's
(i.e. your) burden to foster that consensus. That said, there
doesn't appear to be a policy choice for the board to make here. A
licensor is perfectly free to grant permission under Gnu GPL v{x},
or any later version published by the FSF, so long as the OSI has
added it to its approved license list as at the date on which the
licensee exercises that right.</p>
<p>It is of course courteous to first enquire whether OSI might
object, as you have done. The only objection that I can see is
that the existence of a body of software licensed under these
terms might become an improper consideration in determining
whether to approve a future version of the Gnu GPL. There appear
to be two important cases:</p>
<ul>
<li>There will be pressure to decline an otherwise acceptable
license because of the existence of some software licensed under
these terms. This seems a most unlikely concern as, if there
turned out to be a way to put the OSI in a situation where this
was a real issue, the same might be done with respect to any
license under consideration, thereby crippling OSI. I can't say
that this is impossible, but it seems rather unlikely.<br>
</li>
<li>More likely, there might be pressure to approve an otherwise
unacceptable license because of the existence of an important
body of existing software under these terms. This, again, seems
a little unlikely. We might speculate about whether OSI would
approve GPL at all if it appeared as the first ever copyleft
license today, and even to wonder whether its acceptance under
DFSG and therefore OSD was a result of the important body of
software that existed under GPL at the time, but (a) I'd suggest
that it's unlikely that OSI would make such a decision on that
basis today, and (b) in any event this is merely a concrete
example of the larger problem (pressure to approve an otherwise
unacceptable license because of the existence of an important
body of software licensed under it). It doesn't seem like a
reason for objecting to conditioning a license in the way that
you propose.</li>
</ul>
<p>As for drafting language, that is something that you should take
up with counsel with copyright expertise and — ideally — open
source experience. OSI does not provide legal advice.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>- Roland</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>