On 01/15/2013 01:31 PM, Tom Marble wrote:
On 01/15/2013 12:01 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> [...] So if you imagine [...] (a) copyleft-next being used by actual
> software projects [...]
For those software developers who are concerned about working
on proper "open source" projects [0] and/or having their works of
authorship be license compatible [1] with other "open source" projects
at some point it may be important to seek a ruling from OSI [2] and FSF
about the disposition of copyleft-next.
Indeed.
What do you think is required before copyleft-next could
be submitted to OSI (for example)?
This is something that I have been thinking about a lot recently.
There is a well-publicized procedure for initiating the request for
OSI approval of a license as 'Open Source'. I have not actually
*looked at* the details of that procedure in a while, but I assume
that if a numbered release of copyleft-next is made, seeking OSI
approval would be a logical step. The objection that there is no
software actually using the license raises an obvious chicken-egg
issue related to the point you have made. It is a mark of the OSI's
influence that a new license would *not* be used prior to OSI approval.
I suspect that the OSI would consider copyleft-next "redundant" in
relation to licenses that are popular, widely-used or have strong
communities (although I actually think that would be incorrect and am
prepared to explain to the OSI why that is so), though I do not
understand that to be a barrier to approval as such.
As for FSF, that is another matter. Unlike the OSI, the FSF does not
(AFAIK, Josh Gay or [when he reads this in five months] Bradley can
correct me if I'm wrong) have any sort of known *formal* approval
process, and I do not know whether the FSF would be inclined to give
an opinion on a license not yet in use for actual software of some
non-marginal nature, although I believe there is past precedent at
least with respect to essays analyzing new licenses by RMS.
- RF
[0]
http://opensource.org/faq#avoid-unapproved-licenses
[1] in this context license compatibility would mean publicly accessible,
third party statements from OSI and/or FSF such as
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2]
http://opensource.org/approval
_______________________________________________
copyleft-next mailing list
copyleft-next(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next