[od-discuss] OD Proliferation Policy

Tue Jul 9 04:08:56 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:
> 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.

Is this in git somewhere? (apologies if this has already been
discussed, but I can't find it.)

> 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.

I'd require that, not merely encourage.

Luis