Why limit the pledge to OSI-approved licences?

[Heiki Lõhmus]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 03:24:32PM -0500, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> I do like the simplicity of using the OSI-approved list for this kind of thing,
> and I guess an easy thing to say is "if you want to be protected by the pledge,
> switch to an OSI-approved license".  (For example, the WTFPLv2, CC0, and "public
> domain" are all kind of poorly suited to software projects that want any legal
> protections for other reasons anyway.)

Free Software projects opposed to (the current state of) copyright laws
should not be forced to adopt a licence that unequivocally affirms the
system they oppose.

Furthermore, the CC0 is just as protective of projects as any
OSI-approved Free Software licence that lacks an explicit patent licence
grant. While the WTFPL and ad hoc public domain dedications have many
issues, Free Software projects using them should not receive less
favourable treatment simply because others disapprove of their choices.

> However, the OSI has been pretty clear that they don't intend the approved list
> to be completely comprehensive, so it may also exclude historical software meant
> to be included that just happens to use a reasonable license not on the OSI list.

The licence is not particularly reasonable, but pre-3.0.0 OpenSSL
deservers protection too, does it not?


Cheers,
-- 
Heiki Lõhmus
Vice President
Free Software Foundation Europe
mailto:repentinus at fsfe.org
xmpp:repentinus at fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/dmca-pledge/attachments/20201208/e7cd54ed/attachment.sig>