Bruce Perens and the OSI board

From  what I've seen, the whole license proliferation debate has been harmful to the "OSI
Approved License" mark.

In the past this simply meant that the software was licensed under terms that the community
considered acceptable (the OSD), and that this fact had been checked by a trusted third party
(the OSI).  Now it is possible for a license that satisfies the OSD to be rejected on
subjective grounds of whether it is too similar to another license.

Prior to this, if a project claimed to be licensed under an "open source license" but was not
OSI approved, it'd set off a warning flag.  Now it is entirely possible that such a project's
license is acceptable, reducing the value of the "OSI Approved" mark.

An alternative approach would have been to keep the "OSI Approved" mark as is, but remove the
connotation that such licenses are recommended for new projects.  They could then introduce a
new "OSI Recommended License" mark that they could apply the subjective anti
license-proliferation provisions to (and even revoke from a license if a better more general
license became available).

The majority of current "OSI Approved" licenses would not be "OSI Recommended".  The
recommended set may even look very similar to Bruce's set of four licenses.