On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org> wrote: > 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.
Agreed. On the flip side, I really don't want submissions of every 1-2 word variation in a license, which this wording would seem to encourage (whether or not filtered through a lawyer). Luis _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss