Still, the claim of "open source" or "libre" or "free software" doesn't hold water effectively if there is nobody to verify it (lawyers are probably needed, too). License proliferation is a separate issue.
BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Hypothetically there could have been a change of heart since, but I can't know either way without much more research.
My main point is that there is a lack of transparency in the linked blog post about the license by ECC (Zooko?).
EDIT: If someone wants to choose this (or any other) license, it is important for them to know if it is legally sound, how compatible it is with other licenses/project, and possibly also what are the prospects for the license's future adoption in the "market". Approval by FSF or OSI gives some assurance with all of those. Without that everyone involved with software licensed under the license will just lose time, unless hypothetically TGPPL makes it really big, big enough for everyone to switch from FSF and OSI approved licenses to TGPPL.
Contracts can't be verified like code. You have to go to court and actually litigate before you actually know for sure. . A lawyer's opinion... well, there are usually at least two opinions in every lawsuit. One is usually "this is legal" the other "this is illegal". We have trials to determine who is right, and then sometimes, a couple rounds of appeals.
I agree, I just couldn't think of a better term than "verify". Still, when a non-lawyer designs a license, I think there are likely to be issues with the license that would be obvious to almost any lawyer.
> BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013.
Thanks, that's interesting. If you happen to have the links to the discussion it'd be worth figuring out what they thought was nonconformant (and whether it can be fixed).
One issue seems to be that it wasn't seen as desirable to promote something that is not source-available under whatever license, which conflicts with the main idea of the TGPPL of keeping the software closed-source during the grace period. Another issue was ensuring the source becomes available after the grace period as intended. I may be wrong, though, as I haven't read even half of the extensive discussions on this topic.
BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Hypothetically there could have been a change of heart since, but I can't know either way without much more research.
My main point is that there is a lack of transparency in the linked blog post about the license by ECC (Zooko?).
EDIT: If someone wants to choose this (or any other) license, it is important for them to know if it is legally sound, how compatible it is with other licenses/project, and possibly also what are the prospects for the license's future adoption in the "market". Approval by FSF or OSI gives some assurance with all of those. Without that everyone involved with software licensed under the license will just lose time, unless hypothetically TGPPL makes it really big, big enough for everyone to switch from FSF and OSI approved licenses to TGPPL.