Free Software Licenses not approved as Open Sourse License

+1
would be great to know where the OSI stands in this regard.
--
/a

On 4/21/06, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilsonintel.com> wrote:
>
>
> Laura Majerus wrote:
>
> > Recently, someone had asked whether interested
parties who are not
> > stewards of the license can submit licenses for
approval by OSI and
> the
> > answer at the time was "no."  OSI only
approves licenses that are
> > submitted for approval by their stewards.
>
> We should have this discussion sooner or later, so
let's try sooner.
> As everyone knows, FSF is in the process of revising
GPL and LGPL.
> Also, everyone knows Richard Stallman's opinion of
"open source"
> versus "free software."  I wouldn't dream
of presuming to speak
> for Richard and the FSF, but I would be very surprised
if they
> were to submit GPL/LGPL 3.0 to OSI for approval as
"open source."
>
> If this assumption is correct, and if OSI strictly
enforces the
> stewards-only policy Laura describes, that creates a
highly awkward
> situation where two of the most important licenses
> wouldn't even be evaluated.
>
> Seemingly, something needs to give.
>
> Andy Wilson
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>

Hi Andrew,

>> If this assumption is correct, and if OSI strictly
enforces the
>> stewards-only policy Laura describes, that creates
a highly awkward
>> situation where two of the most important licenses
>> wouldn't even be evaluated.

My perspective is that this *is* a real issue, but that
right now it  
is *premature*.  The FSF has an excellent process for the
community  
to provide feedback, and the document is in a huge state of
flux.  I  
encourage anyone who has concerns or input to express them
at  
gplv3.fsf.org, as many people associated with the OSI are
already doing.

I believe the OSI will at some point  need to state whether
the GPLv3  
conforms to the OSD, but to some extent how meaningful that
is  
depends on how much the FSF wants such feedback from them. 
At any  
rate, this is probably a discussion we want to have after
further  
revision and clarification from the current draft.  The FSF
is doing  
a fine job of soliciting feedback as it is, and I don't
think this  
list add anything to that.

>> Seemingly, something needs to give.

I'm sure it will, but why burn our bridges until we get to
them? 

-- Ernie P.

On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:51 PM, online allthetime wrote:

> +1
> would be great to know where the OSI stands in this
regard.
> --
> /a
>
> On 4/21/06, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilsonintel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Laura Majerus wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, someone had asked whether interested
parties who are not
>>> stewards of the license can submit licenses for
approval by OSI and
>> the
>>> answer at the time was "no."  OSI
only approves licenses that are
>>> submitted for approval by their stewards.
>>
>> We should have this discussion sooner or later, so
let's try sooner.
>> As everyone knows, FSF is in the process of
revising GPL and LGPL.
>> Also, everyone knows Richard Stallman's opinion of
"open source"
>> versus "free software."  I wouldn't
dream of presuming to speak
>> for Richard and the FSF, but I would be very
surprised if they
>> were to submit GPL/LGPL 3.0 to OSI for approval as
"open source."
>>
>> If this assumption is correct, and if OSI strictly
enforces the
>> stewards-only policy Laura describes, that creates
a highly awkward
>> situation where two of the most important licenses
>> wouldn't even be evaluated.
>>
>> Seemingly, something needs to give.
>>
>> Andy Wilson
>> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>>