[okfn-discuss] Open Software Service Definition

Wed Sep 3 19:31:49 UTC 2008

2008/9/3 Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>:
> Dave Crossland dixit:
>
>>Referring to approved license lists is unambiguous. When writing a
>>definition that depends on other definitions, it is good to limit
>>ambiguity.
>
> 1) The OSI list of approved licences is not a definition. The OSD is.

Sorry, I'll try again:

Definitions have ambiguity.

When writing a definition, it is good to limit ambiguity.

Definers write approved example lists to reduce ambiguity.

Lists are finite, which is how they reduce ambiguity.

Therefore when writing definitions that depend on other definitions,
it is better to refer to lists instead of the lists' parent
definitions.

Second best is to refer to the lists, and mention the definition in
case the list isn't long enough.

> 2) You have to weigh between ambiguity and the OSI's _admitted_ and
>   _willingly_ done discrimination against licences with less (or
>   less well-known) "community" (users, licence writers, etc).
>
> I for one would advise to not follow OSI's discriminatory actions.

Any serious license will be submitted to FSF and OSI lists.

Since the FSF list is also included, and they don't discriminate like
that (AFAIK), if a less well known etc license is rejected unfairly by
OSI it will still be listed by the FSF.

Since the OSSD definition says "OSI boolean-AND FSF approved licenses"
this isn't an issue.

-- 
Regards,
Dave