Thank you Allison and Grahame, I'll have to be more precise next time. You can help me. What would you suggest we say when the OSET Foundation proposes a voting or election system with a non-OSI-approved "open source license" called OPL:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b 0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf. Should OSI say more than "not approved"? /Larry -----Original Message----- From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Lawrence Rosen Cc: CAVO Subject: Re: [CAVO] [License-discuss] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft On 05/26/2015 02:44 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote: > "ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not" > > I don't think that the last bit is right. > > "other licenses cannot be known to be" or "other licenses may not be" > - but you can't outright claim that just because OSI has not approved > a license, it's *not* open source Yes, good clarification. That's certainly not what we meant to imply. Mainly we were focused on the fact that the set of open source licenses includes more than just the GPL. Allison _______________________________________________ CAVO mailing list c...@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
