OSD#5 needs a patch?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ian Lance Taylor (ian at airs.com):

> Note that my statement is no way conflicts with Rick's.  Rick said the
> OSD is largely license-neutral.  I agree.

Just to clarify, the statement "The OSD as written today is largely
license-neutral" was Chuck Swiger's, not mine.  (Note that I favour
Commonwealth spelling, and so would write "licence-neutral".)

I'm concerned that this discussion is starting to chase a chimaera:  That
is, some BSD and ex-NeXT types started blitzing this mailing list with 
fervent (but mistaken) concerns about the OSI either being or becoming
a lobby for the GNU General Public Licence.  Their alleged evidence
for this trend was several non-Board members' expressions of dislike
towards Sean's licence -- which makes the former's argument non-sequitur, 
right there -- and ignores the lengthy list of GPL-incompatible licences
OSI has already approved.

To my knowledge, the OSI exists to make the case for open source (not
any specific flavour of it) to the larger world.  If the Board ever
decide to change their minds, I'm sure they'll let us know.

-- 
Cheers,                   I once successfully declined a departmental retreat,
Rick Moen                 saying that on that day I planned instead to advance.
rick at linuxmafia.com                  -- Alan J. Rosenthal, in the Monastery
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3