On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 04:07:53PM +0000, Luis Villa wrote: > The proliferation report attempted to address this problem by categorizing > existing licenses. These categories were, intentionally or not, seen as the > "popular or strong communities list" and "everything else". Without a > process or clear set of criteria to update the "popular" list, however, it > became frozen in time. It is now difficult to credibly recommend the list > to newcomers or third parties (MPL 1.1 is deprecated; no mention of > Blackduck #4 GPL v3; etc.). [...] > - I don't recommend merely updating the existing "popular and..." list > through a subjective or one-time process. The politics of that will be > messy, and without a documented, mostly-objective, data-driven method, > it'll again become an outdated mess.
Luis, I agree. I just want to point out something I've said privately (and I think publicly as well, if not in a few years), which is that the current version of the "popular or strong communities list" is in my opinion a mess. It takes the original (flawed IMO) ~2006 list and does the following: * Changes MPL 1.1 to MPL 2.0 (which of course didn't exist in 2006 and which is significantly different from MPL 1.1) * In contrast to MPL, the existence of significantly different OSI-approved versions of the GPL and LGPL is ignored * Ignores the fact that CDDL's current license steward has for several years had a minor (1.1) update which has not been submitted for OSI approval I had thought it might be preferable to return to the original "popular list" and just make clear that it is the product of a now-distant point in time, but I now believe this solution would probably be seen by many as worse than the current approach. Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
