On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 05:01:03PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote: > "Many older licenses have a variety of minor variations in the > language. Unfortunately, it is not possible for OSI to review every > variation, so we cannot say if a given variation is approved. However, > if you have a competent lawyer review the variation and you conclude > that it is minor and could not possibly have any legal signifance, in > terms of the license being compatible with the Open Source Definition, > then if you use that license and call the licensed software 'open > source', there is at least a possibility that any subsequent discussion > with the OSI about it would go well. Please use good judgement and be > conservative in this situation." > > Not terribly much more meaningful, really, but maybe enough for most > people to work with & do what they need to do? :-) > > Comments, missiles welcome...
One missile: The idea that you would need a lawyer, competent or otherwise, to be involved in such review, though personally appealing from a guild-aggrandizement standpoint, seems highly dubious, and probably sends the wrong message. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss