Three new proposed OSD terms

[Ernest Prabhakar]

On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Steve Quinn wrote:

>> Russell Nelson wrote:
>> Don't go shopping for shampoo, toothpaste, or antiperspirant, then.
>
> At least if I am shopping for shampoo, toothpaste, etc. I can quickly 
> review the products and identify those that I believe will fulfill my 
> purpose. If I am shopping for a Shampoo/Conditioner combination, I 
> can tell which ones meet that criteria.  The same if I want 
> toothpaste with Fluoride.  This is not true when shopping for an open 
> systems license.

It is worth noting how the marketplace solves the "shampoo" problem:
- required labeling of ingredients
- no store carries every shampoo; "buyers" do the hard editorial work 
of picking an optimal subset
- reviewer's guides (e.g., Consumer Reports) provide analysis from 
trusted, presumably unbiased experts

I think that's what we need here.  We shouldn't try to eliminate the 
supply of new licenses (or shampoo) -- there will always be boutiques 
that cater to a specialized niche. What I'm hearing is that people want 
the OSI  to not JUST be the wholesaler that carries every brand of 
shampoo ever made.  They want the OSI (or someone) to act like an 
intelligent RETAILER, and place the most useful brands in an 
attractive, easy-to-find display.  Along with careful labeling, so 
consumers can make an informed choice.

I don't see a particular reason it HAS to be the OSI; arguably the OSDL 
could do the same thing, by creating a 'recommended' list which it 
endorses.  But, then again, I don't mind the OSI doing it; I just don't 
want to do it via the OSD.

-- Ernie P.


>
>> Do what I do: assume that they're mostly the same and choose one 
>> that you like the looks >of.  If, on the other hand, the exact 
>> nature of the license is important to you, then
>> you're going to have to evaluate all of them.  Having fewer licenses 
>> would equally fail >to satisfy you because you wouldn't be able to 
>> get the exact license of your choosing.  >You'd have to choose one 
>> of the blessed ones.
>
> Making an assumption is not my preferred way of making a decision, 
> especially when dealing with contracts, boards of directors, and 
> intellectual property issues.  But, you are probably correct that 
> fewer licenses is not, by definition, the solution to the problem.  
> Having fewer licenses however, I believe, would reduce the effort 
> involved in evaluating the "approved" licenses to find the right one 
> for us.  Not that this is necessarily a reason to reduce the number 
> of licenses.  Optionally, some descriptive blurb or check list 
> describing each license, would be very helpful.  Some way as with 
> your shopping example, that I as well as others can quickly find the 
> licenses that are peppermint flavored, have fluoride and also have a 
> whitening agent.  With the list of possible licenses narrowed by some 
> selection criteria, I can now go about the process, in a reasonable 
> manner, of determining the right license for our situation.
>
> I strongly agree with the statement by Martin Fink in an earlier 
> post... "I just want to make sure that 10 years from now the OSS 
> model actually still works.  That's all - plain and simple.".  One of 
> the things that has to happen to keep the OSS model working is to 
> attract new participants...getting companies like mine to move from a 
> proprietary software model to an open software model.  Complexity in 
> the licensing (meaning both the number of "approved" licenses and 
> complexity in their compatibility) will only tend to delay or 
> possibly discourage such actions.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Nelson [mailto:nelson at crynwr.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:23 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: RE: Three new proposed OSD terms
>
>> As a new user to this list and as someone planning to release 
>> multiple  > projects under one or more open source licenses, I can 
>> tell you that it  > is a nightmare trying to determine the right 
>> license to use.
>
> Don't go shopping for shampoo, toothpaste, or antiperspirant, then.
>
> Do what I do: assume that they're mostly the same and choose one that 
> you like the looks of.  If, on the other hand, the exact nature of 
> the license is important to you, then you're going to have to 
> evaluate all of them.  Having fewer licenses would equally fail to 
> satisfy you because you wouldn't be able to get the exact license of 
> your choosing.  You'd have to choose one of the blessed ones.
>
> Your concern would not be addressed by fewer licenses.
>
> -- 
>
> --My blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | 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  |
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
>