Chad Perrin scripsit: > Is "have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process" really > a requirement for being an "open source license", or is that just a > requirement for being *certified* as an "open source license" by the OSI?
Clearly the latter. The text should be adjusted accordingly, as there are several reasons why a license might be Open Source but not OSI-approved: 1) It has not been submitted for certification in proper form. 2) The Board considers it a vanity license. 3) The Board believes that it substantially duplicates an existing license. > It seems that there is a distinction to be made between "OSI-approved" > and merely "open source", where "open source" would *by definition* > (tautologically, it seems) be any license that conforms to the definition > of open source. Exactly. -- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shall co...@ccil.org buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
