Quoting David A. Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Actually, I've looked over some of the OSI-approved licenses. > I'm still not convinced that there's ever a good reason for > authors of software to use some of those approved licenses either :-).
The OSI doesn't advocate particular licences: It approves _only_ their claim to OSD-compliance. > I wasn't aware that the OSI ever requires that all OSI > members "like" the side-effects of the release conditions - as > long as they meet the spirit & letter of the OSD, they > should be approved. Your rhetoric is overreaching, again: OSI doesn't "require" anything, other than that people wanting to use its certification mark meet specified requirements, including usage of an approved licence. > I'm not asking the OSI to RECOMMEND releasing software as public > domain, or to use public domain software. Just a clarification > that public domain source code (if truly public domain) > is open source software. Feel free to write such a clarification that's markedly less problematic than the one you attempted before, then -- and don't forget to suggest somewhere appropriate to post it. (The page of approved licences, which you have urged, is an obvious non-starter.) -- Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm [EMAIL PROTECTED] for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
