[Since the other thread has degenerated, changing the thread title.] On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:09:47PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: >> > Chad Perrin scripsit: >> > >> >> Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really >> >> a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a >> >> requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OSI? >> > >> > Clearly the latter. The text should be adjusted accordingly, as there are >> > several reasons why a license might be Open Source but not OSI-approved: >> > >> > 1) It has not been submitted for certification in proper form. >> > >> > 2) The Board considers it a vanity license. >> > >> > 3) The Board believes that it substantially duplicates an existing license. >> > >> >> It seems that there is a distinction to be made between "OSI-approved" >> >> and merely "open source", where "open source" would *by definition* >> >> (tautologically, it seems) be any license that conforms to the definition >> >> of open source. >> > >> > Exactly. >> >> I've got a partial draft response to Chad drafted, but John covers >> most of it - the general point is definitely well-taken. I'm about to >> leave on vacation, so am a bit crunched for time- if someone would >> propose an alternate wording, I'd appreciate it. > > I've been without email for about two and a half days, which accounts for > the delay in my response. I just wanted to thank you both for your > replies, clarifying the intent of the passage I quoted. > > I think the sentence in question can be best "fixed" by breaking it into > two sentences, one each about what qualifies as an open source license > and what the OSI review process does. While the following can surely > stand some improvement, it may give a sense of what I mean as an example > of how the edited form might be structured: > > Open Source licenses are licenses that comply with the Open Source > Definition. The Open Source Initiative's review process is used to > approve licenses for certification by the Open Source Initiative, as > examples of licenses that conform to the Open Source Definition that > should be regarded as well-established within the Open Source > community. > > I hope that helps get the ball rolling on a revision.
That's definitely a useful start. I'm not sure I agree 100% with the substance of the second sentence, as (to the best of my knowledge) OSI has never formally laid out a policy or criteria by which something could be OSD-compliant but not approved and placed into at least *some* category. But I'm definitely blurry on that and would welcome correction/clarification (both of Chad's proposed language and my understanding of the history). Unfortunately, in 24 hours, I am going off-grid for two weeks - I regret the timing but look forward to catching up when I get back and hopefully rolling this issue up. Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss