[License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

McCoy Smith mccoy at lexpan.law
Wed Feb 26 18:07:06 UTC 2020

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:33 PM
>>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

>>VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com>:
>>> I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
>>> Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few 
>>> licenses that should probably be decertified.
>>> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to 
>>> certify licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - 
>>> even without affirmative submission. Most of them will not be 
>>> controversial. We want to reach a world in which we have looked at all 
>>> the source-available licenses and made a determination as to their OSD 
>>> conformance. This strengthens the OSD as a tool for measuring licenses.

>>I concur with all of this.

>>I didn't endorse deprecation as an *exclusive* alterrnative to
decertification, but rather as a lesser step we can take by itself when
appropriate *and* as notice that future decertification could be in the

Deprecation as a first step has the benefit of precedent.  15 years of it,
IIRC: https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-to-stop-using-open-source-license/ It
might have an even earlier precedent, as I believe it might have been part
of the discussion within the License Proliferation Committee of '04,
although that was not adopted in the final report:

More information about the License-discuss mailing list