Proposal: criteria for license approval

[Alex Bligh]

I hereby propose the following.

a) Applications for license approval should be processed by the OSI board
   in a timely manner (with allowance for the fact it is a volunteer board),
   against the criteria listed in the OSD and the published license approval
   process ONLY. Evaluation should take into account community postings
   to license-discuss, to the extent that they demonstrate conformance
   or otherwise with these criteria. After evaluation, applications should
   be told whether their license is approved, or whether it has been
   rejected (and if so what criteria it breaches and why). Where rejection
   is for a minor reason that would be remedied by an obvious drafting
   change, the words of this drafting change should be passed on.

b) Neither the above, nor the OSD, nor the license-approval process should
   be changed without open and transparent discussion within the community.

c) As a specific example of (b), the valid concerns of the board re license
   proliferation should not impact on the approval or otherwise of licenses,
   unless and until the results of the proliferation discussion process
   have resulted in changes to (a), the OSD, or approval process in the
   manner set out in (b) above. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph
   should not be taken to prevent the OSI from recommending use or non-use
   of particular approved licenses.


Before anyone jumps in and says it, I am quite aware that the OSI is not
a democracy, and it is controlled by its board, not an ill-constituted
mailing list. However, its validity as an organization rests on having
community support. Whatever people's views on the OVPL, I believe there
is a strong consensus on the above points.

So please reply +1 / -1 to each of the above.

Clearly I'm for all 3.

Alex