> As a consequence, using any software under a non-OSI-approved licensing combination requires professional advice on the scope of rights being granted. [...] S

> As a consequence, using any software under a non-OSI-approved licensing combination requires professional advice on the scope of rights being granted. [...] Sticking to OSI-approved licenses is the way to ensure that everyone’s expectations are met. I have absolutely no strong opinion on either the OSI or the FSF, and I don't really care about licenses in general. Yet it seems like the OSI really likes to add these sorts of "conclusions" even if they don't really add anything to the article? This post isn't that bad since it's just misplaced and bland marketing. But they also recently posted a pretty misleading article about the same court case where they made a lot of weird assumptions to again conclude that they are the only true path (tm). [0] This wouldn't surprise me if it came from a corporation but why would a non profit be so militant and uncompromising w.r.t licensing philosophy? I get advocacy but I guess I'm not used to non-profits being so... competitive? [0] https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/17/OSI-Neo4j-PureThink https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/17/OSI-Neo4j-PureThin...