I see that the OHL has "open" in its name but it is not to be found in the open-source initiative's list.

  1. Did they not apply?
  2. Did they apply but do not match the open source definition?
  3. Why?

I found that the CERNOHL is also not listed.

  • 3
    While I don't know if TAPR applied for inclusion on OSI, my guess is that falls out of OSI's stated purpose - To promote and protect open source software, projects and communities. While they could expand their focus, they are currently only interested in software projects and not hardware, so if TAPR etc. had requested inclusion this could be a reason for not being added. – sambler Nov 16 '18 at 8:06
  • Actually while this agreement is about logo trademarks, it could indicate that OSHWA and OSI also agreed to concentrate on their separate areas. – sambler Nov 16 '18 at 8:22
  • I'm ok with everyone focusing on what they're good at, but failing to realize how much hardware and software need each other and having compatible licensing would be better for everybody seems very short-sighted. – chicks Nov 20 '18 at 13:11

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.