License Proliferation (WAS: Policy)
Eric S. Raymond
esr at thyrsus.com
Sat Sep 24 04:14:01 UTC 2005
Ernest Prabhakar <prabhaka at apple.com>:
> That said, I still feel like the job needs to be done, and nobody
> else seems to be volunteering. Last call?
I think you're it :-).
> If you/the Board want me to do this -- and nobody else in the
> community objects or volunteers -- I'm willing to take this on. BUT,
> only under the following conditions.
> I. The Board explicitly spells out, on a public web page:
> i) The exact phrasing of the three new criteria
> ii) Whether they are part of, or supplemental to, the OSD
> iii) The mechanism by which they will be applied
> iv) The rationale for making them part of the standard for license
i) Ken, please make sure the version we passed gets published.
ii) They are supplemental to the OSD.
iii) We expect license-discuss to apply them when doing evaluations.
The Board will consider them when making final approve/reject decidions.
iv) The rationale for these new criteria is simply that we need to avoid
junk licenses. At a time when we're trying to cut down even on the number
of non-junk licenses in use, we have to be more strict about what we
> II. The discussion takes place openly and officially on "license-
> That means:
> i) There is a notice on the aforementioned web page inviting
> feedback on that forum
> ii) All four components under (I) are "in play" as valid topics of
> iii) Eric, representing the Board, also participates in that
> iv) the Board commits to respond, publicly and in detail, to the
> summary report I will provide
I will participate in the discussion. I will respond on behalf of
the Board, having been tasked to do so at the last meeting.
> Again, this seems the minimum necessary to ensure a credible
> response. Plus, that finally gets this topic of license-discuss. :-)
A good thing.
> And if you're willing to do all that, then:
> III. I personally (not representing Apple) agree to:
> i) Moderate the discussion of these topics on license-proliferation-
> ii) Formulate a coherent summary representing the community consensus
> iii) Respond to and incorporate community feedback regarding that
> iv) Advocate and elucidate that summary to the OSI Board
> Fair enough?
> Also, let me be up-front about my perspective on this issue. I see
> the Board as *trustees* of the OSD and Certification Mark on behalf
> of the *entire* community. That means that I believe they *do* have
> both the right and the duty to amend those as needed to represent the
> best interests of the community. However, that also means they have
> an *obligation* to ensure that such action also represent the best
> *understanding* of the community, as reflected by considered feedback.
Agreed. I couldn't have put it better myself.
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
More information about the License-discuss