3 ms·
Going one level up from the title one should want to avoid OSI licenses. Their original purpose was to approve new licenses. MIT, BSD, and the GPLs already exis
by phkahler 2y ago
Going one level up from the title one should want to avoid OSI licenses. Their original purpose was to approve new licenses. MIT, BSD, and the GPLs already existed, so OSI "approving" more was IMHO not very helpful. Anyone not satisfied with those options was usually trying to add some level of control. Even with a well written new license you cause developers problems wondering about "license compatibility" when they try to combine code under different licenses - a practice that is really useful but often overlooked by license creators.
- JimDabell 2y agoAll new licenses that apply for OSI certification have to fill a gap that existing licenses don’t cover: https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process
- firesteelrain 2y agoI haven’t looked but taking what the author is saying at face value - there are 100 unique gaps requiring 100 new licenses?!
- JimDabell 2y agoNo. The author pointed out there are over 100 OSI licenses, not over 100 new OSI licenses. Many of those are pre-existing licenses, superseded licenses, etc.
- firesteelrain 2y agoYou said “ new licenses that apply for OSI certification have to fill a gap that existing licenses don’t cover” That was my point - there are 100+ gaps?
- JimDabell 2y agoNo. I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding? There are 100+ total, not 100+ new.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI am not sure what YOU are not understanding. Your original comment said: "All new licenses that apply for OSI certification have to fill a gap that existing licenses don’t cover" Author said 100 total. Again, why are there 100 unique cases that 1 license or maybe a few don't already cover? That's my question!
- yencabulator 2y agoCompare when license was written vs when OSI added it to their list. OSI had to play along with the existing licenses. New licenses get less leeway.
- firesteelrain 2y agoI get that but OSI started in 1998 and there were only a few. OSI has reviewed and approved 100 or more licenses. My point still stands - do we really have that many gaps or unique requirements?
- yencabulator 2y agoOSI approved a bunch of pre-existing licenses when it was still establishing itself -- that is, they did not require a "gap" to exist at that time, so your question is based on a flaw premise. For quite a long time now, they've been trying to get people to use the already-approved ones. https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/ https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....
- firesteelrain 2y ago