On 3/11/20 11:36 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 3/11/2020 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: >>>> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an >>>> unpassable license on our website. >>> Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We >>> have plenty of examples of what passes muster. I've never seen why we >>> need to list licenses that don't comply. Why do you think we need to >>> provide that information? >> Because the OSI needs to stop relying on the idea that people trust us >> to decide fairly what makes sense in an OSS license. They don't. We >> need to explain *why* the various clauses of the OSD exist, and not just >> do "we're experienced and we know what we're doing". Examples of >> unpassable licenses *with an explanation of why they are unpassable* >> would help. >> >> For the vaccine license, I think I'll write a blog post to show you what >> I mean. >> > Have you been reading the rationale documents I've been writing (for > both approved and unapproved licenses) since I became chair? Is that not > what you mean? > > CALv1: > https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Archived+Discussions+on+Not+Approved+Licenses/Rationale+Vaccine+License/ > Vaccine License: > https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Archived+Discussions+on+Not+Approved+Licenses/Rationale+Vaccine+License/ > > They're linked from the rejected licenses page.
Oh, wow, those are nice! No, I didn't know they existed, and I'll link to them in the future. But I'm talking about going beyond that -- using the Vaccine License to explain why we have OSD 5 in the first place, because devs under 40 do not believe in the OSD. It needs to be explained. Stay tuned. -- Josh Berkus _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org