4 ms·
No. I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding? There are 100+ total, not 100+ new.
by JimDabell 2y ago
No. 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 agoThat’s not true - OSI has approved about 85 and assumed the rest. They may now want to slow or stop new licenses but that wasn’t the case. My point still stands.