FWIW: The FSF doesn't technically "approve" of licenses (except, I suppose, they approve of their own licenses: GPL, LGPL, AGPL). On their website, they list two types of non *GPL licenses: 1) "GPL-compatible free software licenses" and 2) "GPL-incompatible free software licenses" That's more than mere semantics -- they're not opining upon licenses other than as to whether they believe the terms of those licenses are consistent with the principals of "free software"; nevertheless, GPL compatibility is, to some, an important factor when choosing licenses.
-----Original Message----- From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Johnny Solbu Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:18 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Draft of new OSI licenses landing page; please review. On Wednesday 04 April 2012 20:40, Karl Fogel wrote: > "The FooBar license is not FSF-approved, so maybe it should be > listed > father down, since all other things being equal we don't want to > push > a non-FSF-approved license over approved ones". Maybe there should be some kind if indication of FSF aproved licenses? I can think of two ways to do that: Listing them in a separate group, or some sort of icon or text next to the licenses. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 ******************************** Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på, her skal du motstand finne. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
