Karsten M. Self
kmself at ix.netcom.com
Wed Sep 26 20:23:48 UTC 2001
on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 03:00:07PM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft at mibsoftware.com) wrote:
> One of the reasons I think the recent discussion is important,
> (and not the wide-open opportunity for trolling it appears to
> be) is that the OSI web page says this:
> (From http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html ...)
> USING THE MARK
> "You may use the OSI Certified mark on any software that is distributed
> under an OSI-approved license."
> I think there is a consensus forming that the requirements for
> self-certification must be amended to require OSD #2 explicitly.
> Otherwise, someone can self-certify a binary-only distribution
> under MIT, for example, keeping the source private, and still
> meet the listed requirements to self-certify and use the OSI mark.
> Ridiculous? yes. But that is indeed what the page says. Can the
> page be changed?
This is the problem Russel Nelson and I are investigating in our
discussion of section 2 of the OSD.
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss