Karsten M. Self kmself at
Wed Sep 26 20:23:48 UTC 2001

on Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 03:00:07PM -0400, Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft at 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  ...)
>    "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>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave                    Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!
Geek for Hire            
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list