Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?)
cinly.ooi at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 19:36:46 UTC 2007
It is not going to be possible to discuss the two license per se without
pulling surrounding, non-license related issues nor is it desirable.
Microsoft should not be discriminated simply because it is Microsoft, nor
should it be given special treatment if it is Microsoft.
My view is if the licenses satisfy OSI rules on Open Source and License
Proliferation, it should by default be approved. Otherwise, OSI can and
should be stand accused of anti-Microsoft.
Microsoft, like any other submitters, should be cautioned that its
certification will be pulled if it twist the truth or behave in any manner
that is detriment to OSI's objective. OSI should adopt "innocent until
proven guilty approach". If it does what it should not do, OSI will then
exercise its right to pull the certification if deem necessary. If OSI find
it necessary to exercise this right, it better make sure it makes its
reasoning clear. What I want to see is OSI adopt the approach IEEE did when
firing the chairperson of one of its committee, by giving strong, verifiable
reasons, as oppose to the vague reasons Malaysian' SIRIM's chairman used to
fire everyone in its document format committee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss