Because there is often a compatibility discussion with new license submissions and because the confusion among developers regarding OSS license compatibility comes up about once a year.
For example in 2013 it was brought up in the discussion on NOSA 2.0 https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-June/001948.html And a major objective of EUPL 1.2 was for increased interoperability between EUPL and other licenses https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/001874.html And more recently for LiLiQ there was discussion on its' compatibility with CDDl and MPL https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-October/002586.html And I brought up compatibility between the recently proposed ESA licenses and NOSA. And incompatibility is mentioned as part of the proliferation project: 1. ... 2. some licenses do not play well together Some people use "license proliferation" to refer to the fact that some open source licenses do not inter-operate well with other open source licenses. While we can urge people not to mix non-mixable licenses, we cannot keep people from doing so. This comment generally came from larger companies. https://opensource.org/proliferation https://opensource.org/proliferation-report In what way is license interoperability/compatibility ONLY a FSF issue and not also an OSI one? From: Richard Fontana <font...@sharpeleven.org<mailto:font...@sharpeleven.org>> Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 5:56 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent License compatibility is mostly an FSF-made and GPL-specific doctrine. I can't see how it would make any sense for the OSI to provide guidance on license compatibility beyond acknowledging (as the OSI occasionally has done) the FSF's authority on the topic. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:46:39PM +0000, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > So what is the point of the OSI if it cannot do a simple up or down vote on a > license submission from NASA after 3 years or provide any compatibility > guidance on the licenses it managed to approve in the distant past? > > Especially if the FSF has no problems in providing such guidance? > > From: David Woolley > <for...@david-woolley.me.uk<mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> > Date: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2017, 4:17 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > <license-discuss@opensource.org<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI equivalent > > On 15/02/17 16:58, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) wrote: > > Does OSI have a license compatibility chart for the various approved > > licenses? > > I would have thought that any such document would constitute legal > advice, which is illegal for half the list members to provide, and the > other half would only provide in the context of their specific client's > circumstances. > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss