[License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

[Josh Berkus]

On 3/11/20 11:36 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> 
> On 3/11/2020 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote:
>>>> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an
>>>> unpassable license on our website.
>>> Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We
>>> have plenty of examples of what passes muster. I've never seen why we
>>> need to list licenses that don't comply. Why do you think we need to
>>> provide that information?
>> Because the OSI needs to stop relying on the idea that people trust us
>> to decide fairly what makes sense in an OSS license.  They don't.  We
>> need to explain *why* the various clauses of the OSD exist, and not just
>> do "we're experienced and we know what we're doing".  Examples of
>> unpassable licenses *with an explanation of why they are unpassable*
>> would help.
>>
>> For the vaccine license, I think I'll write a blog post to show you what
>> I mean.
>>
> Have you been reading the rationale documents I've been writing (for
> both approved and unapproved licenses) since I became chair? Is that not
> what you mean?
> 
> CALv1:
> https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Archived+Discussions+on+Not+Approved+Licenses/Rationale+Vaccine+License/
> Vaccine License:
> https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Archived+Discussions+on+Not+Approved+Licenses/Rationale+Vaccine+License/
> 
> They're linked from the rejected licenses page.

Oh, wow, those are nice!  No, I didn't know they existed, and I'll link
to them in the future.

But I'm talking about going beyond that -- using the Vaccine License to
explain why we have OSD 5 in the first place, because devs under 40 do
not believe in the OSD.  It needs to be explained. Stay tuned.


-- 
Josh Berkus