We don't have proprietary rights. But a "name and shame" list would dissuade people from diluting the term. And there is no shortage of organizations who would like to dilute it.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 5:09 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Luis Villa scripsit: > > > Slightly more broad than that: a list of licenses that we have rejected, > > including the rationales for rejection. Your list would presumably be a > > subset, as some licenses might have been submitted and rejected without a > > later, false claim to being open source. > > I think publishing such a list would be a supremely bad idea. Our > business is to approve licenses, not to disapprove them. If someone is > using the term "open source" for a non-certified license, we should > privately try to persuade them to stop doing so, and (if feasible) > get their license certified or change licenses. If they are using > the term in bad faith, as shown by earlier attempts, we should ignore > them -- we don't have proprietary rights in the term, after all. > > -- > There is / One art John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> > No more / No less http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > To do / All things > With art- / Lessness --Piet Hein > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss