Rick Moen writes: > its mission to ensure that OSI Certified licences really convey the
To be clear, that would be "OSI Approved" licenses. It turns out -- and Bruce can hardly be blamed for not having a clue, because we didn't either -- that Certification has some pretty struct requirements under the law; requirements we couldn't meet given our desire that use of the OSI Approved trademark be contingent solely on use of a license which we decided met with the OSD. > If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't > necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2 implies > it. Two lines of thought there: Yes, we can interpret what the OSD says, and we have, just as Debian interprets what the DFSG says (in different ways, I might point out, even though the words are practically the same). Or, we can make a constitutional amendment like we did with OSD#10. I think the latter procedure is more transparent. First because we put the question to people, and second because once the question is answered we modify the primary text, rather than expecting them to understand all the "case law". > [1] Albeit, people who spend significant time addressing other people's > rhetorical questions generally need a better hobby. What if I was to ask a rhetorical question now? -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss