For Approval: BSD License, PostgreSQL Variant

[Chris Travers]

I guess I have one other concern about the license cohort bit.

There is a question where and when a license would need to be submitted as a
prospective cohort member rather than as a full and separate license.  For
example, Mr Rosen's AFL 3.0 would seem to be eligible for cohort membership,
so should future versions of that license go there?

The concern is that I feel that the current aproach of license
categorization serves neither developers nor the cause of controlling
license proliferation well.  It recommends licenses based on popularity
rather than functional elements.  Thus:
1)  The list of licenses by category is largely useless to people selecting
licenses.
2)  Businesses that want "vanity licenses" get basically free advertising on
approval of their license.
3)  It arguably tilts things unfairly against licenses like those by Mr
Rosen.

I think adding a cohort class *may* actually exacerbate problems 1 and 3.

This being said, it is still better than what we have now in terms of trying
to balance the OSI's role in defining open source and at the same time,
limiting the dangers of license proliferation.  Maybe we could try to get
both the "variant" and "cohort" solutions implemented?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071011/235738e8/attachment.html>