Groklaw's OSI item (was: When will CPAL actually be _used_?)
webmink at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 23:27:05 UTC 2007
On Aug 22, 2007, at 22:10, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I agree that it is important to the credibility of the OSI that it
> apply the
> OSD to the Microsoft request in a completely rational manner, and
> that it
> either certify the licenses or document where they are deficient.
> No special
> treatment, either positively or negatively.
I agree completely. I am amazed to hear some people criticising
Microsoft's manipulation of the standards process elsewhere and then
criticising OSI for remaining impartial.
> Proliferation and compatibility (GPL or otherwise) are red
> herrings. Despite
> the conversations on proliferation last year, new licenses have been
> approved by the OSI, so clearly it remains in the license
> business. And compatibility is not part of the OSD, as the
> existence of the
> GPL, MPL, CPL, EPL and others demonstrate. (E.g. not even all of the
> existing "tier one" licenses are compatible.)
I agree with you that the miscibility of code licensed under OSI-
approved licenses is not currently an OSI issue (it should be, in my
view). But I disagree with you over license proliferation. I believe /
duplicative/ proliferation is deeply undesirable to the point of
being harmful, which is why in my work capacity I have now "retired"
two licenses my employer originated near the start of the OSI.
It seems to me that both of the licenses we're being asked to discuss
lack compelling original features. I've not heard a detailed
explanation yet of why they therefore are not duplicative and deserve
approval. The only argument I have heard - that Microsoft are
"playing by the rules and deserve to be rewarded" - smacks of special
[Speaking for myself alone in this case]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2440 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss