[License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

[Karl Fogel]

Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> writes:
>Well, here's a list of OSI-approved licenses that Tom Callaway and I
>judged non-FOSS when we examined them (though I haven't looked at
>these in a few years). (This does not include the Artistic License 1.0
>and certain of its OSI-approved derivatives, which Fedora treats as
>non-FOSS based on FSF precedent.) :
>
>Adaptive Public License http://opensource.org/licenses/apl1.0.php
>Frameworx License http://opensource.org/licenses/frameworx.php
>OCLC Public Research License 2.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/oclc2.php
>Reciprocal Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
>Ricoh Source Code Public License http://opensource.org/licenses/ricohpl.php
>Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php

Without making any assertions as to the open-sourceness or lack thereof
of CPAL-1.0, I'm surprised to see it absent from this list -- whenever
the subject of mis-approval comes up, that one's usually mentioned, for
reasons discussed earlier in this thread.

Richard, did you and Tom keep notes about specifically why you deemed
each of the above to be non-FOSS?  I assume the reasons are not the same
in every case.

By the way, note that the OSI is using the SPDX license abbreviations
for URLs now (though with compatibility redirects of course).  So the
the above list would now be:

  Adaptive Public License
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0

  Frameworx License
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0

  OCLC Public Research License 2.0
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0

  Reciprocal Public License
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5

  Ricoh Source Code Public License
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL

  Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0
    http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0

Best,
-Karl