Subject: Re: Questions to OSI Board quorum
From: David Barrett <>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:01:41 -0800

Michael Bernstein wrote:
>>Again, I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything they wouldn't 
>>already do.  I'm just trying to make it easier for all involved.  
>>Likewise, I'm not claiming it's an enormous improvement; it's just a 
>>small step in a direction that is particularly important to me.
> There was nothing wrong with your goal as such, but the proposed means
> were a bad trade-off: A major licensing vulnerability for bad-faith
> actors to exploit in return for some minor convenience improvement for
> good-faith actors.
> Isn't this the same kind of trade-off that gave us Microsoft Word macro
> viruses and Outlook email worms?

Ahh, now we're talking.  All I want is a realistic assessment of the 
pros and cons.

I don't dispute that potential for abuse is a factor that should be 
weighed in.  But it should be *weighed* in, along with potential for 
gain.  A licenses have consequences else they'd have no point to exist. 
  Depending on your personal values, any license has the "potential for 
abuse".  These are not boolean nor objective concepts.

You're categorizing a grant-back as a "major licensing vulnerability", 
and that the savings is a "minor convenience".  That's great, I'm 
thankful to hear your opinions stated.

But these are your opinions.  Clearly, I think otherwise -- I think it's 
a minor vulnerability, and a substantial gain.  Thus your exact same 
logic applied with my subjective value judgment makes it seem OK.

The question is who's value judgment runs the OSI, and for that I'd say 
it must be the board.  And given that the board consists of many people, 
the only way to sample that judgment is by vote.

We already know that the board has a formalized process for decision 
making.  I just want to follow it and see what they have to say.

All I'm asking is for someone to authoritatively say "ok, the board will 
discuss it in the next meeting and get back to you".  And then I want to 
hear "the board decided by 10-1 or 7-4 or 6-5 that the risk is/isnot 
justified, case closed."

Would you dispute that this is the most effective way to resolve the matter?