Three new proposed OSD terms

Russell Nelson nelson at
Thu Mar 3 06:43:43 UTC 2005

Matthew Garrett writes:
 > On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 08:11 -0800, Joel West wrote:
 > > On 10:09 AM -0500 3/2/05, Russell Nelson doth scribe:
 > > >11. *The license must not be duplicative.* 
 > > 
 > > This seems like an administrative detail, not a principle of the open source movement.

Yes, you're right.  I turned them into OSD changes at the last minute.
Possibly not necessary.

 > > NY Times: Mr. Nelson, what does the open source movement stand for?"
 > > Nelson: "We stand for free access to source code, and non-duplicative licenses".

That's what OSDL wants us to stand for.  It's not as ridiculous an
idea as you mean it to sound.

 > Duplicative licenses aren't a major problem *as long as they're mutually
 > compatible*. In some cases we have licenses with the same aims, but
 > which can't easily be incorporated into the same work. I think that
 > actively hinders development.

Not true.  Martin Fink has a problem at HP.  He can only deploy
software if HP's IT department has approved the license.  Every new
license makes his job that much harder.  He's understandably upset
that an organization he has no control over (OSI) is making his life
harder.  I don't blame him for being unhappy; I just wish that he had
approached us directly rather than attacking us as if we were the
enemy.  I mean, I had to hear from reporters that he was unhappy and
dissing OSI!  That's totally whacked.  Not at all how you would expect
a vice president of a Fortune 500 company to behave.

--My blog is at         | The laws of physics cannot
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | be legislated.  Neither can
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell  | the laws of countries.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP  | 

More information about the License-discuss mailing list