[License-review] For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License

[Bruce Perens]

Kyle,

While there may be greenhorns or new kids who are unclear on the function
of OSI, and I understand that many are unclear of what Open Source actually
means, I do not receive reports of the community being upset that more
licenses are not being approved. If there is any exasperation communicated,
it is that so many licenses have already been approved and that there
appears to be no end to the process. Indeed, the best thing the OSI might
be able to do for the community at this point might be to stop operating
continuously and only consider licenses at several-year intervals.

I would consider it an active disservice to the community to approve a
license that had the effect of a present one and was simply shorter and
purportedly easier for some party to understand but perhaps only in the
mind of the author.

The fact that there is some program out there to parse license terms and
perform combinatorial analysis as if it were "Lawyer in a Box" is not a
compelling argument for allowing an increase in the combinatorial problem.
I would much rather have the developers understand the combinations, even
if this means restricting the number of them, than have them rely on the
appearance of a legal authority where none is actually utilized.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

> On 2017-10-19 21:10, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > But for God's sake don't tell the open software community,
> > > of all people, that their identity's defined by an opaque,
> > > bureaucratic rite on a mailing list, overtly camouflaging an
> > > arbitrary decision process that can't be changed, no matter
> > > how frustrating it may be.  I couldn't defend that.  I don't
> > > know anyone my age or younger who'd want to try.
> >
> > This is overstated. The OSI board has usually discussed on this public
> list
> > the reasons for rejection, when there are practical reasons for rejection
> > that are not explicitly stated in the OSD. The reasons I just set down
> are
> > not put forth as an addition to the OSD, just a statement of what some
> > perfectly reasonable concerns should be. I think we can develop such a
> list
> > without ever insisting that it be made a modification to the OSD, and
> also
> > without insisting that the OSI board limit themselves to a programatic
> > interpetation of the OSD.
>
> I hope I overstated reality.  I fear I haven't overstated
> probable perception.  And not just of unread greenhorns, the
> "new kids" I sometimes read about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171023/6e3c6d58/attachment.html>