On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Smith, McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> *>>From:* License-discuss [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *VanL > *>>Sent:* Monday, May 20, 2019 2:03 PM > *>>To:* [email protected] > *>>Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] comprehensiveness (or not) of the > OSI-approved list > > > > > > > > >>Yes, but it is not clear what it means other than the license is no > longer recommended. OSI does not have a policy that describes the result of > new issuances of software under "deprecated" licenses using the current > definition. > > > > The following licenses have been superseded or retired by the steward > (creator) of the license. **They should not be used to license any new > code.** > > > > https://opensource.org/licenses/do-not-use.html > But definitionally, what happens if someone ignores the above? If I release a new work under one of the listed licenses, I believe that it is still Open Source, just unwisely licensed. It would be better if the above had something like "Each license as a date on which it was deprecated. These licenses, though once approved, do not meet the current standard for being considered Open Source. Thus, any works copyrighted after [deprecation date for license] should not be referred to as being 'Open Source'."
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
