License Committee Report for September 2005
btilly at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 19:33:32 UTC 2005
On 9/8/05, Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> Ben Tilly writes:
> > On 9/8/05, Eric S. Raymond <esr at thyrsus.com> wrote:
> > > Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>:
> > [...]
> > > > o The board needs to revisit the three license criteria it added
> > > > some months ago. I have tried to apply those criteria to the OVPL,
> > > > and not had any support. The license-discuss membership has spoken
> > > > loudly and clearly that we should approve all licenses that comply
> > > > with the OSD. Thus, we should withdraw those criteria and if we're
> > > > serious about them, set about modifying the Open Source Definition.
> > >
> > > The license-discuss membership doesn't make policy. The Board does.
> > >
> > > Those criteria were approved after due deliberation by the Board for
> > > good strategic reasons. Anyone who is unwilling to apply them may
> > > recuse him or herself from the process.
> > Do you realize how strongly you've confirmed any qualms that people
> > might have about the way that the OSI is run?
> Sorry, Ben, but you're being a silly Tilly here. Eric is just
> pointing out that the current policy is the current policy and that
> it's published and people would, could, and should expect it to be
> applied. To *not* follow the published policy would be a mistake.
While I'm often silly, I don't think that I'm being so in this case.
Two points come to mind.
- First, as has been noted by multiple people, it is unclear what the
published policy is. It is unreasonable to expect people to expect to
follow a policy that they don't know about.
- Second, I was not commenting on the position or decision. I was
commenting on how the decision was communicated. In particular I am
pointing out that anyone who has the opinion that the OSI board
operates in a vacuum and is uninterested in outside feedback would
have had that opinion (accurate or not) confirmed.
> Now, if the policy is wrong, that's another matter.
The way that that interaction looked was that you said, "I tried to do
what the board said I should do and everyone objected so strongly that
I think the board should revisit this policy" and Eric said, "Your job
is to do what the board says and I wish that everyone who disagrees
with the board will shut up." That might not BE what the interaction
was. That was merely how it LOOKED.
Unfortunately, appearances matter.
> The current difficulty is simply this: I say that "readable" means
> "readable in context with other licenses; that is, if you make a
> derivative work from another license, you minimize the changes." Alex
> Bligh says that "readable" means that the license *itself* should be
> readable even if it has to make changes with no legal import.
> Obviously, *I* think I'm right, but I think that both of our
> interpretations are reasonable. Since there's ambiguity, we need to
> go back to the board to get it resolved.
That is extremely reasonable, but is not at all the impression that I
got from the interaction.
More information about the License-discuss