On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
>> "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the
>> language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every
>> variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved.  However,
>> if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you conclude
>> that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal signifance, in
>> terms of the license being compatible with the Open Source Definition,
>> then if you use that license and call the licensed software 'open
>> source', there is at least a possibility that any subsequent discussion
>> with the OSI about it would go well.  Please use good judgement and be
>> conservative in this situation."
>> Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most
>> people to work with & do what they need to do? :-)
>> Comments, missiles welcome...
> One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or
> otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing
> from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and
> probably sends the wrong message.


On the flip side, I really don't want submissions of every 1-2 word
variation in a license, which this wording would seem to encourage
(whether or not filtered through a lawyer).

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to