[License-discuss] Improvement to the License-Review Process

jonathon jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 19:48:59 UTC 2020

On 2020/08/25 17:04, Andrew DeMarsh wrote:
> I would at least like to suggest that at minimum wording be added to the
> requirements for L-R such that the license submission must be made with the
> express purpose of a License be considered for actual real world use and
> that the request be made with a professional intent for a usable OSI
> License to exist which fills a need not addressed by previously approved
> licenses. 

Forget the natural person/legal expert whatever aspect.

Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each
other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the
license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "x" is an arbitrary
number, the idea is that by being used, there is a demonstrated real
world use with professional intent for a usable OSI license which fills
a previously unaddressed need with the OSI approved licence range.

Phrasing obviously needs a lot of work:
* _NASA Open Source License 5.0_ shouldn't be dismissed, simply due to
NASA being the sole user of the proposed licence;
* I don't know what a good number for "x" is.  Something between 2 and a
baker's dozen seems right to me.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list