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

[Bruce Perens]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:

>
> If the board wants to be transparent about the current situation, it
> should amend the OSD to add: "11. Whatever OSI's then-current board feels
> is the interests of the open source movement." That wouldn't be ideal, but
> at least it would be accurate and transparent.
>

There are a lot of licenses that are OSD compliant and have never been OSI
certified, many are never submitted. You or I can publicly say that such
things are OSD-compliant but not OSI-certified. This is as things should be.

OSI supposedly has higher regard for its imprimatur than you or I. OSI can
write down the other things that they suggest be considered, but these need
not and probably should not be part of the OSD. Right now they have
certainly discussed them online but haven't codified the list. This is not
the end of the world, but could be addressed.


> A better approach would be to attempt to capture some of the unwrittten
> criteria that the board uses (proliferation, drafting quality, etc.)
>

It's not actually unwritten. You can find volumes about it on this list.
Just not codified.


> and then also add "plus whatever else the board thinks is in the best
> interests of the movement, to avoid gaming".
>

Yes. That's why this is a board rather than a machine parse.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171024/3dddae4c/attachment.html>