[Fwd: [gnu.org #285277] Open Source Initiative Certification for GPL 3.0]

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi Matt et al,

If you feel that the OSI is either:
a) not sufficiently representative of the interests of its constituency
b) not energetic enough in pursuit of those interests

Then, please, take you concerns and suggestions to membership-discuss:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.membership/ 
110
http://www.opendarwin.org/~drernie/C1923057755/E20060424120933/ 
index.html

Those issues are very much on-topic for that list; they are off-topic  
for this one.

Thanks,
-- Ernie P.

On Apr 28, 2006, at 4:58 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 05:54:00PM -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
>> Zak Greant writes:
>>> No need to fuel the fire here. Both FSF and OSI are relevant. Dave
>>> doesn't really follow what the OSI does,
>>
>> It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the OSI does.  It's that Dave
>> said something lacking in simple logic.  How can the OSI be  
>> irrelevant
>> BECAUSE too many people are asking for license approvals?
>
> While true, I'd suggest that
>
> a) the fact that license-proliferation archive suggests that there's
> been no activity since last September, and
> b) nobody seems interested in discussing where boundaries should be
> drawn when it comes to patent-related license termination
>
> are more suggestive of a lack of contemporary relevance. Who is  
> actually
> taking the lead on establishing community standards? The FSF are doing
> their GPL3 thing, but OSI don't seem to be doing much other than
> approving the odd license according to standards that were written
> several years ago.
>
> -- 
> Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org