[License-review] veto against Unlicense
mccoy at lexpan.law
Sun May 17 21:59:01 UTC 2020
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 1:01 PM
> To: mccoy at lexpan.law; License submissions for OSI review <license-
> review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] veto against Unlicense
> If it got as popular and widely used, and produced communities as
> strong as those associated with, the MIT license or the Apache License 2.0 or
> the GPL, it will have earned a place on that list -- assuming it otherwise meets
> the criteria for being an OSD-conformant, software-freedom-providing open
> source license (which I believe it does).
Yes, I agree with all that. I just think submitters of licenses probably shouldn't be able to insist that their license is "popular and widely used," and demand that it be categorized as such (I seem to recall the submitter of the Mulan license tried that, and then asked "when will it be moved into that category?" I also recall that there were several license stewards who felt hard done when their license didn't get on that list when it was first put together). If there's going to be a category like that (and I also am somewhat skeptical of the category, and what is and isn't on it), I really feel like the Board needs to decide that, based on -- as you note -- objective data.
More information about the License-review