[od-discuss] OD Proliferation Policy

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> On 24 June 2013 01:37, Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> > This would basically be a slight simplification of the OSI categories.
>> > Interestingly, it seems OSI chose to avoid Recommended / Not recommended so
>> > as to not tread into policy territory  -- from
>> > http://opensource.org/proliferation-report:
>>
>> Not just policy, but politics. Nothing would make this process more
>> miserable more quickly than having people lobby us about non-objective
>> criteria. OSI has come perilously close to that road before; I really
>> don't recommend it.
>>
>> Some reasonably objective non-proliferation ("recommendation"?)
>> criteria that would probably be useful in this context:
>
> I'm a big +1 on this and the criteria below.
>
>> - public drafting process (e.g., conducted on a public communication
>> forum of some sort; multiple drafts presented to that forum) (not sure
>> how many of the current licenses would pass this text- maybe just CC?)

Added to http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ which is now
somewhat lengthy, edits welcome.

I also encourage people sending a "hey, do we think this license is
conformant" mails to this list who aren't license stewards/submitters
to nevertheless attempt to answer the questions for the benefit of
other participants and in the interest of having an informed
conversation.

Mike