[License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the OSI-approved list

[VanL]

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:

> *>>From:* License-discuss [mailto:
> license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] *On Behalf Of *VanL
> *>>Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 2:03 PM
> *>>To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the
> OSI-approved list
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Yes, but it is not clear what it means other than the license is no
> longer recommended. OSI does not have a policy that describes the result of
> new issuances of software under "deprecated" licenses using the current
> definition.
>
>
>
> The following licenses have been superseded or retired by the steward
> (creator) of the license. **They should not be used to license any new
> code.**
>
>
>
> https://opensource.org/licenses/do-not-use.html
>


But definitionally, what happens if someone ignores the above? If I release
a new work under one of the listed licenses, I believe that it is still
Open Source, just unwisely licensed.

It would be better if the above had something like "Each license as a date
on which it was deprecated. These licenses, though once approved, do not
meet the current standard for being considered Open Source. Thus, any works
copyrighted after [deprecation date for license] should not be referred to
as being 'Open Source'."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190520/eb23fa8a/attachment.html>