[License-review] resolving ambiguities in OSD [was Re: For Approval: License Zero Reciprocal Public License]

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Luis,

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
>
>
> As an example of the lack of transparency Kyle is (patiently, politely)
> pointing out,
>
FSF approval is not mentioned in the mission, the OSD, or any other OSI
> document, as far as I'm aware.
>

Huh? This is a mailing list discussion and there's no suggestion this is
part of any formal process.


> So it is un-transparent, even to a well-intentioned and fairly
> sophisticated drafter like Kyle, why it should be diagnostic for OSI
> approval.
>

Seems to me any license that is approved by only one of  {OSI, FSF, Debian}
is an indicator of an unaddressed issue. So, simply as an exercise of
reflection, asking if one's license will be approved by all is a great
pre-flight check.

Cheers

S.
-- 
*Simon Phipps*  http://webmink.com

*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171025/39973051/attachment.html>