Hi, all-
A few of us were talking and realized the FAQ/website have nothing to
explain why *using standard licenses* is a good idea. This being a sort of
basic point, I started remedying the problem :)
Draft FAQ entry addressing the question is here:
Standard is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
Sent from my smartphone
Original message
From: Luis Villa l...@lu.is
Date:04/27/2014 6:11 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: License Discuss license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject:
Care to propose an improvement?
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:37 PM, lro...@rosenlaw.com lro...@rosenlaw.comwrote:
Standard is a loaded term. Licenses are not standards and OSI is not a
standards organization. Larry
Sent from my smartphone
Original message
From: Luis
How about OSI Approved license? That's what you do.
Larry
Sent from my tablet and thus brief
Simon Phipps webm...@opensource.org wrote:
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
I don't think that's the point of the entry Luis is constructing. He's
using the word standardized as a term of speech rather than as a
technical term.
Mind you, OSI has described itself as a standards body for open source
licenses for a long time, see http://opensource.org/about (I believe that
5 matches
Mail list logo
