On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:42:51 -0400 Ben Cotton <bcot...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen > <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > > I'm not quarreling with OSI's attempt to get everyone to use > > approved licenses > > Larry hit on my suggestion. Anywhere the word "standard" is used, some > variant of "approved" or "OSI-approved" is a reasonable replacement. I might be confused but when Luis speaks of "standard" licenses I assumed he means a proper subset of the OSI-approved licenses, perhaps approximately the set of licenses the OSI has labeled "popular" (something I'm known to have criticized in the past), and I took Larry's initial response to be based on the same interpretation. To characterize all of the OSI-approved licenses as being "standard" in a common-sense sense would really stretch the common-sense meaning of "standard". For an arbitrary example I picked in going down the list of OSI-approved licenses, to assert that there is something "standard" about the Attribution Assurance License would be bizarre; I trust no one would disagree with that. It's a *nonstandard* license. The fact that it was approved by the OSI is very important but it does not transform the Attribution Assurance License into something that is "standard" in a common-sense sense. As to whether it is appropriate to liken OSI to a standards group, that seems to be an orthogonal issue -- it's a different use of the word "standard" from the use I believe Luis is employing. - Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
