www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Non OSI approved licenses
Date Tue, 02 May 2017 21:15:41 GMT
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with Apache forbidding
a license that OSI has actually reviewed and evaluated as
"not open source" (as defined by the OSD), assuming that still matches
our definition of open source.  I have a problem with defining OSI
as the license arbiter for Apache, particularly for licenses that OSI
have chosen not to approve for many reasons unrelated to the OSD,
including guidance from their primary sponsors for avoiding
"license proliferation" and a general, persistent desire to make it
easier to absorb smaller projects into larger works under the GPL.

OSI was created for the sake of commercial redistributions of free
and open source software. That's what the OSD is really all about:
making it possible for Debian, Slack, SuSE, RedHat, and others to
compile a royalty-free software distribution, perhaps charging money
for the convenience, without running afoul of the usual copyright
concerns and without invoking the negative "marketing power" of the
FSF and RMS.

OSI is not, and never has been, a promoter of open development for
the communities who actually do that development, even though some
of their board members (like Jim) are chosen because of their
strong involvement in and around those communities.  We are the
experts on (at least) one right way to build open source.

....Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message