OSD#5 needs a patch?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ian Lance Taylor (ian at airs.com):

> Much of the discussion was on the broader, and far more political,
> issue of whether the OSI should approve it even assuming that it was
> OSD-compliant.

This dilemma can be resolved by making sure people understand that an
OSI-approved licence cannot be assumed to be OSI-recommended -- or
recommended by anyone but its (often misguided) creator. 

People who consult this mailing list on licensing can pretty much count
on hearing reasons why it's probably not in their interest to create Yet
Another Public Licence, absent some truly compelling advantage.  
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval hints
politely at this, in:

   Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your
   license.  Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. 
   If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already
   approved, describe exactly what you have changed. 

OSI might wish to get around to elaborating on that, explaining why
gratuitously different licences are likely to be ignored, how they
create combinatorial problems for derivative works, etc.  They can do
this, and indicate which licences are most-often used (and thus the
biggest compatibility target for those who care), _without_ advocating 
any one specific OSD-compliant licence over another.

Just a thought.

-- 
"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the 
shoulders of giants." (Isaac Newton)    "If I have not seen as far as others, 
it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson)   
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet." (Brian K. Reed)
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3