Una lunga filippica che suggerisce, in pratica, di porre barriere all'ingresso nella creazione di licenze libere per consolidare un duopolio OSI - FSF (viene messa in mezzo anche Debian, ma direi impropriamente). We de-facto instituted what my colleague Richard Fontana once called the

“Rule of Three” — assuring that any potential FOSS license should be met with suspicion unless (a) the OSI declares that it meets their Open Source Definition <https://opensource.org/osd>, (b) the FSF declares that it meets their Free Software Definition <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html>, and (c) the Debian Project declares that it meets their Debian Free Software Guidelines <https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>.

E nonostante il fatto che le prime due versioni della GPL siano stata redatte in privato da Stallman e Cohen, ora che qualcuno osa mettere in discussione il loro diritto divino di sancire cosa sia Free Software o Open Source si propone: By submitting this license to OSI for approval without any public community

discussion, and without any discussion whatsoever with the key charities in the community, is unacceptable. The OSI should now adopt a new requirement for license approval — namely, that licenses without a community-oriented drafting process should be rejected for the meta-reason of “non-transparent drafting”, regardless of their actual text. This will have the added benefit of forcing future license drafters to come to OSI, on their public mailing lists, *before* the license is finalized.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/16/mongodb-copyleft-drafting/ Direi che è proprio ora di pubblicare qualche nuova licenza Copyleft fatta in casa. Giacomo