On 8/25/20 1:51 PM, Andrew DeMarsh wrote: > Demonstrate that at least x projects, which are not related to each > other, either currently use the license, or will utilise it, if the > license is accepted as being "Open Source". Whilst "x" is an arbitrary > number, the idea is that by being used, there is a demonstrated real > world use with professional intent for a usable OSI license which fills > a previously unaddressed need with the OSI approved licence range.
FWIW, *most* license submitters have done exactly this. When they don't, it's usually the first question asked, and I don't know that we've passed a license that didn't have at least one substantial project behind it in the last 10 years. So this seems like a solved problem, unless we're proposing raising the bar to exclude startup projects. I would support requiring submitters to identify themselves, although I'd like to include in that identifications that might be internet-based rather than government-issued (e.g. "I'm 'onehacker' on Gitlab, you can see my projects here"). -- Josh Berkus _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
