[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
nelson at crynwr.com
Sat Jan 6 05:59:44 UTC 2007
DShofi at atmi.com writes:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Then you are in favor of "open source" having multiple conflicting
> > definitions, which will diminish and dilute the term.
> 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.
If you invite your friends to play a game of soccer, there is a shared
expectation about the rules. If you introduce new rules without
warning people that you are doing so, you will make people VERY
If you distribute Open Source software, there is a shared expectation
about the permissions that come with such software. If you call your
software Open Source but try to change the permissions without warning
people that you are doing so, you will make people VERY UNHAPPY. The
fact that businesses (who normally get paid to make people happy) are
doing this makes me wonder what I've got wrong.
--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