Subject: Re: pruning "dead" licenses
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:48:08 -0500

Ernest Prabhakar writes:
 > I've been trying to follow this thread as best I can, but I'm still 
 > confused as to the primary purpose of this exercise.

The goal is to reduce the number of licenses that open source
developers need to be aware of.  That is to say, the "license
proliferation issue".

 > Maybe I'm missing the point, but it seems to me like "decertifying"
 > is a technical solution to what is really a -marketing- issue.

Perhaps.  If it's a marketing issue, then you think that the license
proliferation problem is more perception than legal.  Because, if it's
an actual problem, then marketing messaging isn't going to change the
licenses.

 > That is, we want to limit the number of active listed licenses 
 > presented to users.  But "decertifying" implies to me that any license 
 > which has been de-certified is legally forbidden from using the OSI 
 > mark,

Yesbut: Decertification is only possible for unused licenses.

 > Here's how I'd break it down.  Does this make sense?

Yes!

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Freedom means allowing
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | people to do things the
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | majority thinks are
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  | stupid, e.g. take drugs.