On 21/02/13 05:40, Richard Fontana wrote:I think that having a clearly defined list is much easier. Then it's
>> Who decides? That sounds like a recipe for lawyer argument. Is it better
>> to refer to the OSI license list as of a certain date instead?
>
> That was essentially what an earlier release did (IIRC). I'm really
> trying to define what 'proprietary licensing' is and I don't know a
> good way to do it. And the goal here isn't perfection, but rather to
> ward off practitioners of certain kinds of business models. I just
> want a way to signal "keep away" to a certain kind of potential
> licensor. The definition doesn't have to be perfect for that purpose.
>
> That said, I'm not satisfied that this can't be made better, including
> perhaps in the way you've suggested.
pretty obvious to all. In the current set up, I can imagine someone
wanting to take advantage of that clause thinking "Hmm, I don't think
their pseudo-open license meets the OSD, but they do. So what now?"
Pseudo-open is currently observed (if not common), and we should plan
for it possibly remaining so.
I wonder if we can think of a more generic phrase. Or we could go for
> This is just a clarification of what kinds of things absolutely are
> not 'Legal Notices'. It isn't meant to be exhaustive, but I did
> recently add 'Powered by statements' because that is such a common
> form in which I've seen the problematic condition.
the slightly linguistically ugly '"Powered by"-style statements.' Or you
could try leaning on the legal definition of what makes a valid
copyright statement, and say you only have to preserve those.