Subject: Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
From: Ian Lance Taylor <>
Date: 09 Oct 2003 12:56:07 -0700

Chuck Swiger <> writes:

> >> The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral, and it concerns
> >> me when people want to change the OSD to prefer some licenses over
> >> others.
> >
> > Who, for example?  If those "people" aren't on the OSI Board (I'm not,
> > for example), then they only have opinions like other featherless
> > bipeds, and not a direct say in the matter.
> Please refer to Ian Lance Taylor's recent message, where he said:
> "Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant.  I
> can only recall one.  I argued against the license, but I said right
> from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant."

Note that my statement is no way conflicts with Rick's.  Rick said the
OSD is largely license-neutral.  I agree.  My message was in reference
to the OSI.  That is, the organization, not the set of definitions.

(In case you don't know, I'm not on the OSI board either.)

I happen to think that the OSI should also be largely license-neutral
within the broader goal of working for the good of the community.
That doesn't mean that I think the OSI should approve a license which
in my opinion will harm the community.

I believe that a license can be OSD-compliant without being

license-discuss archive is at