OSI's war on corporate licenses

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Apr 12 04:39:44 UTC 2005

Quoting Joel West (svosrp at gmail.com):


> But it seems the OSI board has gone far beyond license proliferation,
> to actively discourage firm-sponsored OSS licenses of any kind.

Oh dear!  You seem to be leaping to some melodramatic and fatuous
biz-speak conclusions plainly not supported by the OSI announcement text
under discussion.  How unfortunate.

> But how does this lead to the conclusion that firm-sponsored OSS
> licenses or projects are a failure? There's a logical leap that's been
> left out.

Perhaps you would be less perplexed if you hadn't somehow missed the key
word "asymmetrical" in the sentence you just quoted.  But wait:

> Or is this just an attack on asymmetric open source business models? 

Oh, you _didn't_ miss that word, after all!  But how can a desire to
desire to no longer approve (new) licences with asymmetical rights
reservations be an "attack" on a "business model"?

> And if we're going to attack asymmetric models, why the MPL/CPL/CDDL?
> Why not attack the dual license GPL model? 

I see no asymmetric rights reservations, there.  Perhaps they're in some
disused corner of those licences, unknown in previous licensing
discussions?  Pray elucidate, sir.

> We are just beginning to see a huge experimentation in open source
> business models. It's hard to see how OSI or the open source movement
> are helped if those involving dual license get to call themselves
> "open source" but those involving the CPL do not.

You would presumably be less perplexed if you hadn't missed the words
"From now on" in the OSI announcement.

Cheers,                           "This is Unix.  Stop acting so helpless."
Rick Moen                                               -- D.J. Bernstein
rick at linuxmafia.com

More information about the License-discuss mailing list