On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 6:30 PM John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: >> most people out there are rather on the >> level of "Microsoft will close source Github". > > > I thought Github's software was closed-source already. >
Yes. That's why it's funny. >> >> I remember when Microsoft submitted the MS-PL. Some people who were >> >> also vocal in this thread, were strongly against approving it, because >> although the license was OSD compliant, Microsoft was an evil company. >> Luckily it was approved, and look at Microsoft's progress since. > > > Perhaps you also remember when I submitted MS-PL and another MS license a few > years before. They were rejected on the perfectly correct process grounds > that I could propose them but I couldn't change them if the OSI requested > changes (they were too new to fit under the "legacy" category). I accepted > that and withdrew them, but I continued to maintain (in the face of attacks > on Groklaw) that the licenses were nevertheless open source, and eventually > OSI agreed with me. I was not intruding on OSI's monopoly on "open source", > because it has none. > I wasn't very active at the time, so don't remember details. From a distance I thought it was Microsoft that submitted it. Thanks for doing it if it was you. It was the right thing to do! >> >> There could also be an "open >> source but not recommended" category for licenses that were approved >> but only used by 1 or 2 projects/vendors. > > > Some of the existing categories, which were absolute murder to get agreement > on, were intended to serve that purpose. A *lot* of mailing-list > participants did *not* want OSI to be in the position of saying "License A is > better than license B." I don't think that's changed. Of course, anyone > else can set up a license wizard that does make such recommendations. I know. I personally don't have a strong opinion one way or another. It's fairly easy to statistically show a small set of licenses are used for like 99% of software, and the top 3 - 5 probably cover something like 60-90 %. But if people get upset when the license with their fingerprints doesn't get included, OSI can also keep a neutral alphabetized list. What I don't think makes sense is to keep an alphabetized list and then argue that we can't approve new licenses because list is too long. henrik -- [email protected] +358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7 _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
