Subject: Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
From: Chuck Swiger <>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:33:35 -0400

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
[ ... ]
>> 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?)

I followed the discussion with some care, but I didn't especially want 
to participate in a flame war.  There appear to be many people who read 
this list without posting their opinions on every topic to arise; like 
others, I lurk until I have something I feel is useful to say.

What's your problem with this?

> 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.

Of course there are.  So why give Sean's proposal such a hard time 
compared to the 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.

You asked a question.   You got an answer which Ian confirmed by 
agreeing with my recollection that at least one person claimed Sean's 
license was not OSD-compliant.  In addition, Ian stated that while he 
thought Sean's license was OSD-compliant, that he did not think that 
the OSI board should approve Sean's license (to paraphrase "argued 
against").  If you want to look up the list archives for details, fine.

>> 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.

You misunderstand.  I'm not trying to argue with you, or make clever 
remarks to keep your interest, or anything else other than debating the 
point at hand, and even that is losing interest because of the ad 
homiem attacks.


license-discuss archive is at