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

[John Cowan]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:34 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.
>

DIstinguo.  The OSD clauses 1 and 3-10 define what an open source license
is.  Clause 2 plus availability under an open source license define what
open source software is.  What the Board does is to say what OSI Approved
Licenses are.  Every OSI Approved License is an open source license (at
least we hope so), but the converse is not true.

A better approach would be to attempt to capture some of the unwrittten
> criteria that the board uses (proliferation, drafting quality, etc.), and
> then also add "plus whatever else the board thinks is in the best interests
> of the movement, to avoid gaming".
>

Indeed, that would be a Good Thing if specified as "Criteria for OSI
Approved Licenses", also including "Is an open-source license in the sense
of the OSD."  This would be distinct from "Grave and Perilous Licences."

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
"After all, would you consider a man without honor wealthy, even if his
Dinar laid end to end would reach from here to the Temple of Toplat?"
"No, I wouldn't", the beggar replied.  "Why is that?" the Master asked.
"A Dinar doesn't go very far these days, Master.        --Kehlog Albran
Besides, the Temple of Toplat is across the street."      The Profit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20171024/81d60a31/attachment.html>