On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 22:41:10 +0000, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Jose Luis Rivas <ghostbar@debian.org>
> > Just to give context to your email, could you provide a list with the
> > OSI-approved licenses that you call non-free? (Maybe a link) That way
> > every one else knows which licenses are you talking about exactly.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt
> shows the ones where OSI and FSF disagree, but what's the
> point of knowing which are involved? Basically, OSI has
> aided proliferation.
That list doesn't answer the question asked, in that I imagine that some
or all of those licenses are what we'd accept as free.
I'd be rather more interested in a list of licenses that are all of:
a) approved by OSI
b) rejected by us
c) actually applied to software that is otherwise worth packaging,
and hence where OSI is doing real harm by muddying the water.
If they've approved a license or two in error (the first Apple license
for instance) then as long as nobody is using that license it doesn't
make a lot of difference, but it would be nice if they made a point of
cleaning up their act by finally declaring such certifications as
flawed, and revoking them.
If they've not already done so, they could also have a "Open Source, but
we'd rather you didn't use this drivel" category, with a recommended
equivalent license that is a better choice if you were thinking of using
that one.
Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/
|-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
pgpm48uFznF78.pgp
Description: PGP signature