Subject: Re: pruning "dead" licenses
From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@66h.42h.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:13:26 +0000

Russell Nelson dixit:

>Mitchell Baker writes:
> > Russell Nelson wrote:
> > 
> > >I'm shooting for decertifying and would accept delisting.
> > >De-emphasizing is a done deal (in that we accept that it will be done,
> > >in some fashion).
> > 
> > If OSI goes the decertification route, would the OSD need to have a 
> > clause that a license must actually be *in use* to maintain its status 
> > as approved?
>
>That would probably be the best way to implement it, but it is an
>implementation detail.

That's pretty insane - after all, the OSD defines an open source licence,
while the "OSI certified Open Source software" mark does not apply to
licences but to software which fulfils ALL of the following criteria:
 - is licenced fully under OSD compliant licence(s) (not counting dual
   licences as long as there is at least one way to get these)
 - all of the OSD compliant licences are certified by OSI
 - the software itself contains the mark

If I were you, I'd restrict use of the mark, but *not* make the OSD unfree.

> > Russell Nelson wrote:
> > 
> > > certification mark.  I think that one thing we should immediately do
> > > is say "You MUST link to our copy of the certification mark; all other
> > > use is prohibited.  You MUST send us a copy of any use of the
> > > certification mark in print; all other use is prohibited."

You sure you work for OSI?

//mirabile