Should the three new criteria be in the OSD?

[Thorsten Glaser]

Evan Prodromou dixit:

>That is, OSI says,
>"Bring us your license, and we'll tell you if it's OSD-compliant, and if
>not, we'll try and help you fix it." This is a model that is just
>begging for more licenses to be created.

OSI does not.

In fact, OSI tries to be a politician ("We want to reduce the number of
licences" - hah, as if you could get people to change them on legacy
code, want to know how hard OpenBSD tried that?), and fucks off people
whose licences are perfectly OSD-compliant and already widely deployed,
who aren't even doing that for themselfes, because they are not English
native speakers, and the OSI board consists mostly of dirty Americans
(who, by the way, don't know English either, from what I understand).

And others leave out BSD and similar, freely minded, people on the way:

>My sense is the problem is a little more complex:
>
>#1 individuals who are FSF fans are concerned that the copyleft needs to be strong

This is about open source. The FSF does a good job already on "free
software", by the way.

>#2 small and medium businesses won't work with the GPL (unless it's their own dual license) and want either a
>permissive or module-only viral license (like LGPL or MPL)

Fun thing that the MPL isn't reusable.

>#3 big companies with financially significant patent portfolios

Yeah, but the OSD only covers the copyright licences.


These people about whom "Open Source" (without the [tm]) really
is are left out.

Yeah, this is a call for flamebait. Please direct them to my
private mail account instead of to this newsgroup.

//mirabile
-- 
> [...] Echtzeit hat weniger mit "Speed"[...] zu tun, sondern damit, daß der
> richtige Prozeß voraussagbar rechtzeitig sein Zeitscheibchen bekommt.
Wir haben uns[...] geeinigt, dass das verwendete Echtzeit-Betriebssystem[...]
weil selbst einfachste Operationen *echt* *Zeit* brauchen.	(aus d.a.s.r)