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

[Matthew Flaschen]

DShofi at atmi.com wrote:
> I am in favor of the OSI serving its purpose without putting prior 
> restraints on software developers who want to participate in the open 
> source community.

First of all, no one's talking about prior restraints.  We're talking
about rebutting false claims about what is and isn't open source.
Second, it seems the developers of Exhibit B licenses don't want to
participate in the open source community so much as they want to say
they do.

  That purpose is to provide expert consultation (before
> or after publication) and address THE open source definition 
> incompatibility, if need be.

No, the OSI's purpose is simple.  Decide what is open source, and then
support open source.  They don't have to cater to things that aren't
open source in any way.  There is no definition incompatibility; there
is no other OSD, just occasional special pleading.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070105/6c888730/attachment.sig>