Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
From: Rick Moen <>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:27:56 -0800

Quoting Matt Asay (

> I don't think anyone on this list gives these companies the benefit of
> a doubt.  I've been pushing the company toward the GPL since the day I
> started.

Fair enough.

> It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the
> companies.  A license has been submitted. 

1.  As noted, it's not actually a licence (nor written in syntactically
    coherent English sentences).

2.  As also noted, it's not the actually licence anyone is _using_, all
    of which their sponsoring companies have carefully avoided
    submitting.  Because they can predict the outcome -- and I figure 
    Mark Radcliffe might have told them that as part of his consulting.

It's disingenuous to say OSI is "being slow", when twenty-plus companies
including yours have deliberately eschewed the certification process for
years, _and are still doing so_.

> The ball is in OSI's court.

_A_ ball is in OSI's court.  It's deflated and the wrong shape for the
game actually being played, but assuredly it partakes of the ball nature.

> As such, it doesn't do much good to further hector the companies.

I do zero hectoring of all companies that aren't deceptively promoting
obviously-proprietary modified licences as "open source".  I give prompt
recognition of firms that do the right thing.

> They've done what has been asked of them by OSI. 

Really?  They've submitted the modified licences they're _using_ per ?  When
did that happen?  

Cheers,            "Orthodoxy is my doxy.  Heterodoxy is someone else's doxy."
Rick Moen               -- William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester (1698-1779)