Change ot topic, back to OVPL

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Russell Nelson wrote:

> Alex Bligh writes:
>  > I await their confirmatory emails. As I said, we are always ready
>  > to listen to feedback. However, my priority is to make the license easy
>  > to read (which includes comparability with the CDDL), not merely to make
>  > it easily comparable with the CDDL.
> 
> I understand that that is *your* priority.  It is reasonable for you
> to what what is best for you.  As an industry standards group, OSI
> needs to worry more about what is best for the whole industry than for
> any one party.  I don't want to make this into any kind of personal
> issue (not that you are).  We're both acting properly within our roles.

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.

On this list there have been numerous mentions in the past about protecting the
integrity of the "OSI Certified" certification mark.  It was mentioned
that the OSI must ensure that the mark is not applied (or prohibited
from being applied) arbitrarily.

Has this changed?  Why do we keep reading party-line non-proliferation
arguments about a license under consideration for the mark, instead of
"Is it OSD compliant?"

There is a gambit being played out here.  Someone wants to use the established
popularity of the "OSI certified" mark to get a wide-reaching change in how the
"industry" accepts licenses.

This is dishonest. And, from discussions here, it may be a really bad idea
when you want to protect the integrity of a certification mark, which has always
meant OSD compliant, but now will mean something about consensus from a non-democratic
committee voting on how intangibly "worthy" a license is.

When someone questions this gambit, we continue to be told that Eric, Martin,
and friends are "looking out for the best for the whole industry."  That is
purely empty bald rhetoric from people who usually pride themselves on "meritocracy."
(It is ridiculous for anyone to claim they know what is best for all individual developers,
licensors, or licensees, much less claim that they can actually DO SOMETHING that
satisfies all of them.)

So, "Talking to more people" is not a valid argument, it is a smokescreen.  All it
takes is ONE person saying "sorry, that's not in my best interest", but we have had
more than one, and not just people looking to approve new licenses.

With so many suits and lawyers getting input into this license recommendation process,
the Non-proli committee is obviously too bourgeois to do something that is good for
"all" developers.

Yes Russ, developers do indeed know what is best for them.  And they will do it if
you are honest.  Usurping the "OSI Certified" mark and replacing it with some
other criteria is not honest.  Bringing up non-proli arguments against a license
on license-discuss is not honest.  Listen to what people are telling you.

(Not posted to OSI non-proli.  They are obviously committed to their campaign
behind the banners of Fink and Raymond, so what's the point?)

Forrest.