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

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017, at 08:49 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 05:36 PM, Kyle Mitchell wrote:
> >> It's not actually unwritten. You can find volumes about it on this list.
> >> Just not codified.
> > For what it's worth, as someone undergoing this process in
> > the first person for the first time, I can't overstate how
> > helpful it is to have static webpages setting out the
> > Definition, the annotations, and the review process.
> 
> For that matter, as a member of this committee, if there are criteria
> other than the below for evaluating licenses, I would like to know about
> them:
> 
> 1. Is legally valid/rigorous
> 
> 2. Complies with OSD
> 
> 3. Is significantly different from existing licenses
> 
> 4. Has a substantiated use case
> 
> Those are all of the criteria that I'm aware of.  So if there are others
> I should be examining, please let me know. 

I'd argue another one is "Is sufficiently clear and understandable",
though that is closely related to 1 and 2.

Richard