[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

[Jim Jagielski]

++1.

In fact, I will go further. I think FSF designation *should be* required.
From what I can see GPLv2 compliance is the main, if not sole, aspect
of this license, which makes it attractive and useful and which
differentiates it from others. In other words, that is what makes it
a *different* license rather than "just another" license. OSI has
changed from the days when it didn't worry about license proliferation,
but now it realizes it has a duty to the larger ecosystem to be more
circumspect on which licenses are approved.

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:38 PM, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> 
> Smith, McCoy scripsit:
> 
>> [S]o I don't believe FSF designation is required before OSI approval.
> 
> No, of course not.  But if the whole purpose of the license is GPLv2
> compatibility, and the FSF is considered the judge of that (ultimately
> the judge of that is an actual judge, of course), then it makes sense
> to ask the FSF what it thinks, so that the OSI can determine if the
> license does what it says on the tin before approving it.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
> All Norstrilians knew that humor was "pleasurable corrigible malfunction".
>        --Cordwainer Smith, Norstrilia
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review