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

Eric Renaud Eric.Renaud at Sun.COM
Thu Jan 4 07:27:16 UTC 2007

Open Source licensing under the OSI definition is in many (including my 
own) eyes a good thing.  But you've got to ask:  Who
benefits from keeping open source an 'undiluted'.  Certainly those who 
have code under OSI approved licenses would benefit.
Certainly those who would like to use and leverage code written under 
OSI approved licenses.  I believe consumers of those
projects and their derivatives benefit as well.

The OSI has always had /someone's/ best interest at heart in its 
propagation and mentoring of  'open source'.
Why, just look at the members of the board (who's names should be posted 
somewhere conspicuously on the OSI site
considering their non-profit status  . . .).   The interests are 
self-serving, make no mistake.  Any idea of altruism is long
out the door when it comes to that and probably could not have been 
applied in the first case when it comes to 'open source'.
Even RMS (and please take no offense here, as none is intended!) enjoys 
the fruits derived from his standing in the (Free) and
Open Source software would.  BTW - that's GNU Linux if you don't mind. ;)

I certainly don't, nor do I think does anyone else who, earns our bread 
and butter from open source
software blame them. 

All that being said, the OSI has done an excellent job in walking the 
fine line in ensuring the benefit of using
an OSI approved license has remained as such (a benefit) for all those 
that choose to do so.  The ideals
of Open Participation and Open Standards are still in plain view there.  
And until those start to fade, the OSI
is as good as any other entity to uphold what open source is.

DShofi at atmi.com wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:10 -0500, DShofi at atmi.com wrote:
> >> From there, it is the market that will drive good behavior with regard
> >> to use of the term (as opposed to the certification mark).
> >Well, I suppose this is a policy issue for the OSI. Personally, I'm
> >skeptical of this approach. Are you familiar with the term
> >'greenwashing'?
> >It seems to me that even though the OSI has no property interest in the
> >term 'open source', The OSI does have a moral interest and authority,
> >and there is definitely plenty of room for the OSI to counter, loudly
> >and clearly, attempts at corporate 'openwashing'. No other organization
> >can currently fill this role.
> I thought that I made myself clear.  I do not disagree with the OSI's 
> vital role as moral authority, consultant, certification mark 
> provider, etc. as Michael references above.  However, I do not 
> recommend that anyone fool themselves into thinking that the OSI or 
> anyone else has any proprietary right to "open source" as a textual 
> term so as to require approval before use thereof.  That is my sole 
> point.
> David 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070103/07948409/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list