Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being > > OSI-approved. > > Interesting. Is this because you believe that the OSD is incomplete > and that it should disallow more licenses, or is this because you > believe that OSI approval should not be the same as "OSD compliant"?
The latter. Being OSD-compliant is, in principle, a matter of fact which can be determined by any careful reader. A license either does or does not comply with the OSD based on the reading of the text of the license and the text of the OSD. (In practice, natural language is ambiguous, and the OSD is an attempt to pin down a somewhat nebulous idea, so we have lots of discussions about whether particular licenses are in fact OSD-compliant.) The OSI is an advocacy organization which claims to operate ``for the good of the community.'' That gives it considerable freedom of action with respect to actually approving licenses. I would argue that the OSI is not obligated to put a license on the approved list merely because it is OSD-compliant. The fact that a license is OSD-compliant does not necessarily imply that approving it is ``for the good of the community.'' On the other hand, one could imagine a different sort of OSI which was purely in the business of determining whether licenses met the OSD. The difference is along the lines of the difference between the city council which may approve or deny a building permit on a wide range of arguments, including ``the good of the community,'' and the building department which simply determines whether or not a particular proposed building meets the city code. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
