3 ms·
IANAL but has this been submitted to the OSI? I read the license and don't even see anything they'd even question. They list many licenses (https://opensource.o
by Pet_Ant 4y ago
IANAL but has this been submitted to the OSI? I read the license and don't even see anything they'd even question. They list many licenses (https://opensource.org/licenses/ https://opensource.org/licenses/) that they don't recommend. Is it just not used broadly enough to warrant their time yet? It seems fit for inclusion.
Definitely seems to fill the middle ground between "open source" meaning "sanctioned by the OSI" and "meet the open source definition OSD".
- chrismorgan 4y agoIt has not—or else it would easily be approved. What the Blue Oak Council said in 2019 was roughly that they weren’t interested in submitting to the OSI because its procedures and policies were broken (based on having been involved with OSI in the past; and I gather there’s wide agreement to this sentiment to at least some degree), though they wouldn’t object if someone else did; and they did offer to submit it as a test case under some proposed new procedures, but nothing happened with that reform. Around the time of the publication of BlueOak-1.0.0, one of its authors wrote “Don’t Rely on OSI Approval (activist approval does not track practical needs)”: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/05/05/Rely-on-OSI.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/05/05/Rely-on-OSI.html (pity about the awful slug in the URL), which explains some of the problems with OSI.