Re: New OSI-approved licenses
Rob Landley <rob@...>
On 12/17/2015 02:46 PM, J Lovejoy wrote:
It's not the wording. It's acknowledging their mistake's existence.On Dec 17, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Rob Landley <rob@...> wrote:Hi Rob,
"There is a license that the OSI approved after this license was addedpurposes."
And by adding that info, I get those questions, so I need to update my
license.html page to preemptively explain about OSI. I was hoping not to
open that can of worms.
Could you maybe wait for somebody to ask about it first? I honestly
don't believe anyone reads OSI's licensing page anymore. I do expect
them to read SPDX's.
Please feel free to edit, if you have better wording in mind.It's not the wording. You have the right to put whatever you want on
your web page, just like OSI can say what it likes on their page. But if
you validate what OSI says, it makes me need to set the record straight
on _my_ page, and I was really trying not to go there.
If you must you must, you have your own policies to follow. I'm just not
looking forward to it.
P.S. Any course of action you can shoot down by linking to an XKCD strip
is probably not a good idea, and in this case it's http://xkcd.com/386.
Unfortunately, http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2006-07-13 also applies.
I'm going to back away from this thread again, I no longer believe I'm