[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[DShofi at atmi.com]

Rick Moen wrote:

>Quoting Scythereal (scythereal at bitmeta.org):

>> Ironically, those are the principles the open source idea is against.

>Freedom to misappropriate the term "open source" when convenient (e.g., 
>for licences obviously designed to impair third-party commercial use)
>is, actually, not among our core values.  Is it possible that you're
>confusing "open source" with "empty head"?

Time out guys.  Let's not get into a debate as to whether the OSI has any 
proprietary right in the generic term "open source" much less any control 
over the fair use of the term in its commonly understood form.  That is a 
battle I fear anyone would lose.  I do agree that it is preferable for 
project leaders/source code distributors to adopt an existing open source 
license from OSI's list, but I do not favor any posturing of OSI or any 
other organization with THE power to prevent or permit use of the term 
"open source" on licenses that parties independently assess to satisfy the 
definition.  Rather, the OSI should continue to admirably serve the 
community by acting as a consulting and policing organization for those 
licenses that fail to satisfy the definition and by providing the 
certification mark over which they appropriately maintain control.  From 
there, it is the market that will drive good behavior with regard to use 
of the term (as opposed to the certification mark). 

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070103/28b509c1/attachment.html>