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

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Thu Jan 4 04:23:45 UTC 2007

Must disagree.  We name things and ideas and expect the names to
reliably identify those things and ideas.  For example, you wouldn't
publish an Ethernet packet analyzer under the name Scythereal.  Open
Source describes any software distributed under a license that
complies with Open Source Distribution, and .... we decide if a
license complies.

Scythereal writes:
 > Ironically, those are the principles the open source idea is against.
 > On 1 Jan 2007 12:22:43 -0500, Osi <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
 > >
 > >
 > > >From: Craig Muth  <craig.mu at gmail.com>
 > > >If we're talking about projects whose source is open - for
 > > >downloading, modifying, redistributing, and selling - and assuming
 > > >they get their license to reasonably conform to the OSD, who are
 > > >we to say it's not open source?
 > >
 > > We are the Open Source Initiative.  We created the term, we created the
 > > goodwill behind the term, and it is very much our job to say what is and
 > > what is not Open Source.
 > >
 > > That's who we are.

--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | You can do any damn thing
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | you want, as long as you
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | don't expect somebody else
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | to pick up the pieces.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list