An explanation of the difficulty of solving license proliferation in one sentence

[Adriano Galano]

Hey guys:

Why not stop your "road to no way" discusssion?

Why not began a public survey/consultation to the FLOSS 
community about what they want (corporates and individual 
developers)?

Best regards,
-Adriano


On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:40:59 -0500
  "David Dillard" <david.dillard at veritas.com> wrote:
>Hmmm...
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III 
>>[mailto:mibsoft at mibsoftware.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:30 PM
>> To: Open Source License Discussion List
>> Cc: Forrest J. Cavalier III
>> Subject: Re: An explanation of the difficulty of solving 
>> license proliferation in one sentence
>> 
>> > Software that meets the Open Source Definition is Open 
>>Source. OSI 
>> > should do its job and certify it.
>> 
>> Agreed.  If the OSI wants to change its definition of 
>>its 
>> job, then someone else will spring up to safeguard the 
>>OSD.
>> 
>> I've been patiently waiting for Nelson, Fink, and 
>>Raymond to 
>> come to their senses this week.
>> 
>> Hasn't happened.  So here's a cluestick.
>> 
>> If fewer and compatible licenses are needed in order to 
>>allow 
>> the big corporate interests easy picking, then it is 
>>kind of 
>> hard to hold a middle ground: Everyone must accept the 
>>GPL.  
>> It wins by sheer numbers.
>
>"Fewer" does not mean "one."
>
>
>
>> If that is unacceptable, then someone pushing for this 
>>would 
>> be kind to present a rational argument for allowing 
>>other 
>> licenses to exist that also excludes new licenses.
>> 
>> Licenses exist to serve the needs of the SOFTWARE 
>>AUTHORS. 
>> Since there are many, many more small organizations 
>>writing 
>> software, they deserve preference.  Licenses are not, 
>>and 
>> should not be, written primarily to conform to the needs 
>>of 
>> the licensees,
>
>Primarily?  No.  But if open source authors want their 
>software to be
>adopted by as wide an audience as possible, they SHOULD 
>carefully choose
>the license they use.
>
>
>
>> and especially not primarily to the needs of 
>> big corporate licensees so that "more big corps get on 
>>board 
>> open-source software."
>
>Are you against making ANY changes to help corporations 
>use open source?
>If so, why?
>
>
>
>> If a project wants to use a license that is not well 
>>accepted 
>> and not compatible with other licenses, then yes, they 
>>should 
>> be gently reminded of that at license submission, but 
>>they 
>> must remain free to do that and take the consequences of 
>> incompatibility.
>> 
>> Why should they care if their OSD-compliant vanity 
>>license 
>> conflicts with all of HP's open source IP?  They should 
>>care 
>> by natural consequences, not artificial ones. They have 
>> incentive enough to create compatible IP, without the 
>>OSI 
>> deciding FOR THEM.
>> 
>> Make no mistake, these 3 principles are not about 
>>reducing 
>> OSI workload, it is a method that LICENSEES are 
>>attempting to 
>> force artificial consequences onto authors who desire to 
>> release OSS software under licenses incompatible with 
>> someone's "approved list."
>
>It's not about "forcing," it's about "asking."  There's 
>no way for a
>licensee to force a licensor to change their license.
>
>Open Source is supposed to be community.  People in a 
>community
>cooperate, that's what makes it a community.
>
>
>
>> That someone wants to create artificial consequences is 
>>just 
>> one of the opening salvos in the next OSS war: locking 
>> everything into a few licenses using patent grants and 
>>mutual 
>> termination clauses.
>> 
>> That will play out in our lifetimes, but it seems that 
>>HP et 
>> al can't wait and want to shoehorn projects into a 
>>smaller 
>> subset of licenses now.
>> 
>> I predict that if OSI makes the 3 new conditions part of 
>> license approval, it will soon lose its power to 
>>influence 
>> opinion of those who really matter: AUTHORS who are 
>> philosophically aligned with the OSD.  Some other 
>> organization will spring up to guard the OSD which is 
>>not 
>> "serving two masters."
>> 
>> Actually, I don't even know why I'm writing.  I'm not at 
>>all 
>> concerned about this gambit.  At worst, the OSI will 
>> marginalize itself, again.
>> 
>> It still irks me that the people who formed the OSI 
>>really 
>> bungled (and still bungle) the branding strategy that 
>>was 
>> going to be important to increase FLOSS acceptance 
>> commercially.  Tis a pity.  How many years did it take 
>>to get 
>> a logo?  Who's enforcing its application now?
>> 
>> Does Raymond still think he is doing all the pushing 
>>towards 
>> commercial OSS acceptance?  High profile stories like 
>>SCO vs 
>> IBM, GNU/Linux, Firefox, and OpenOffice have done way 
>>more 
>> than the OSI's non-attempts like high profile open 
>>source branding.
>> 
>> These 3 "making it simpler for suits" principles are not 
>> going to help as intended either.  (Oh, something will 
>> CHANGE, but that isn't the same as HELP."
>> 
>>