I haven’t looked but taking what the author is saying at face value - there are 100 unique gaps requiring 100 new licenses?!

No. The author pointed out there are over 100 OSI licenses, not over 100 new OSI licenses. Many of those are pre-existing licenses, superseded licenses, etc.

No. I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding? There are 100+ total, not 100+ new.

I am not sure what YOU are not understanding. Your original comment said:

"All new licenses that apply for OSI certification have to fill a gap that existing licenses don’t cover"

Author said 100 total. Again, why are there 100 unique cases that 1 license or maybe a few don't already cover?

That's my question!

Compare when license was written vs when OSI added it to their list. OSI had to play along with the existing licenses. New licenses get less leeway.

I get that but OSI started in 1998 and there were only a few.

OSI has reviewed and approved 100 or more licenses. My point still stands - do we really have that many gaps or unique requirements?

OSI approved a bunch of pre-existing licenses when it was still establishing itself -- that is, they did not require a "gap" to exist at that time, so your question is based on a flaw premise.

For quite a long time now, they've been trying to get people to use the already-approved ones.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

That’s not true - OSI has approved about 85 and assumed the rest.

They may now want to slow or stop new licenses but that wasn’t the case.

My point still stands.