Concern with Manifesto Point #2

[nothingismagick]

2. Licensing Sustainers believe that open source refers to software that uses a license approved by The Open Source Initiative (OSI) or The Free Software Foundation (FSF).

While I wholeheartedly agree that the OSI and the FSF are authorities on the matter, having the privilege of reading the minutiae of the discussions around license proposals and the bureaucracy involved in said approval processes, I feel that this is too heavy handed.

I guess I would prefer language that uses SHOULD instead of the implied MUST and offers an alternative - because there are always new license schemes like polyform that arise and haven't had the chance to be rigorously debated.

I prefer to think that we can all agree on the standpoint that some projects may choose a moralistic viewpoint / stance that precludes certain "approved" licenses from being used, such as developers who wish to prevent their software from being used for military purposes or by those who similarly and purposefully violate human rights. This flies in the face of the "free-for-all" that common OSS licenses seek to enshrine.

Since there is direct reference to the wg-diversity-inclusion in this very document, I feel that it is an important distinction to make.