Subject: Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:05:09 -0700

Quoting Chuck Swiger (chuck@codefab.com):

> You are familiar with the fact that Larry Rosen proposed a change to 
> section 6 of the OSD in an attempt to clarify what is meant by 
> "discriminatory", correct?   Is it the case that you don't believe that 
> any such change possibly might affect "the core notions of open source 
> as reflected by the OSD"?

I am reasonably certain that the change Larry hopes to _eventually_
introduce after (as he says) much discussion will change neither the
core notions of open source nor the way the OSD reflects it.  Why?
Because Larry and the rest of the OSI Board are clueful and understand
open source.

> Sean Chittenden proposed a license for OSD approval.  The comments I 
> referred to were in response to his proprosal, and are also related to 
> Larry's proprosed change as mentioned above.

1.  The overwhelming consensus, very clearly, was that Sean's licence is
OSD-compliant without regard to the personal dislike that several people
also saw fit to air.  (Where were you?)

2.  As should likewise have been evident, Larry was trying to address a
longstanding concern of OSD clauses 5&6 being unclear in what is meant
by "discrimination" -- and that the OSI may itself have been a bit fuzzy
one what sort of discrimination makes something open source and what
does not.

> Perhaps you should ask Sean whether he thought suggestions that his
> license should not be granted OSD approval due to being "anti GPL" had
> little do with his situation or the charter of this list?

I don't certainly need Sean's help to resolve that question.  The answer
is perfectly obvious.  Wake up, Chuck:  There are already _many_
GPL-incompatible licences on the OSI-approved list.

>>>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."

Guess what, Chuck?  This is an open-subscription mailing list.  It's a
small miracle that we don't have _more_ erroneous declarations of fact,
and that Ian believes he remembers only one in this instance.

And after contemplating that one vaguely-remembered poster fails to
qualify as "people" on account of quantity, you can re-read what I just
said about only the OSI Board having a direct say in any proposed OSD
revisions, and cease going out of your way to ignore substantive points.

> Hmm.  Did what I say above make you feel petulant?

Although I collect dumb and point-missing rhetorical questions, the above
unfortunately just isn't interesting enough.  Please try harder.

-- 
Cheers,                        
Rick Moen                         This .signature intentionally left blank.
rick@linuxmafia.com  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3