On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:47 AM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com> wrote:
> > On 6/3/2019 7:13 PM, Luis Villa wrote: > > for basic "is it used by any modern-ish software at all" those could > > give you a pretty good start. > > It might reduce some of the perceived risks with changing opinions or > classifications of licenses if they aren't in use anyway. It's also a > bit of proof in the pudding, meaning the fact that no one is using it > may be evidence that the intended audience perceived unacceptable > drawbacks with the license that were missed at the time of approval. > As has been pointed out in other emails[1], it's impossible to prove the negative - "absolutely no one is using this". There is no guaranteed-comprehensive database of FOSS-y code. So one should be careful with saying things like "not in use". But if a license can't be found in the tens of millions of projects on GitHub, plus Fedora/Debian[2], then for many (all?) policy purposes I think OSI should feel comfortable saying "this is unused, or close enough that we feel OK treating it as unused"... Luis [1] who did not notice my "basic internet 101" subject change ;) [2] I suspect OSI should probably focus on *live* software in most policy questions, otherwise I'd also have included Software Heritage
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
