Subject: Re: Three new proposed OSD terms
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 02 Mar 2005 23:31:52 -0500

Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> writes:

> We have always pushed people in this direction, but by adding these
> terms to the OSD, we will be proactively refusing licenses which don't
> meet these requirements.

These requirements are unlike the other requirements in the OSD, in
that rather than trying to write down what we mean by the term "open
source", they are specific to the issue of whether the OSI should
approve a given license.  Therefore I do not think they should be
added to the OSD.

However, I think they are valuable requirements.  Therefore, I think
the OSI should change its approach to approving licenses to saying
"the license must meet the OSD, and must also meet these additional
adminstrative requirements."

In fact, I would another point, along the lines of:

    *The license must not be detrimental to the open source
    community.* If in the judgement of OSI approving the license would
    harm the open source community, OSI may deny certification.

Ian