[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Sun Jan 21 00:30:38 UTC 2007
Peter Kloprogge wrote:
> Reading the arguments I get the strong impression that many feel an attribution
> provision is not supporting the general open source idea, but there is no
> definition that limits an attribution provision.
Actually, yes there is. It's called the Open Source Definition (not to
mention the Free Software definition and the Debian Free Software
> Just to go back one
> step, the home page of opensource.org clearly states:
> " The *basic idea behind open source* is very simple: When programmers can read,
> redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software
> evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can
> happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software
> development, seems astonishing."
Why start at the second paragraph? The first paragraph (indeed the
first sentence) says "Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit
corporation dedicated to managing and *promoting the Open Source
Definition* for the good of the community [...]" [emphasis added].
> and it also states:
> "Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world."
Not to cater blindly to the commercial world, but to persuade them.
> The key issue here is that providing the possibility to add an attribution
> provision doesn't hurt the basic idea (if enough contributors accept it) and it
> certainly helps making a case to the commercial world.
The basic idea is the OSD. The OSD predates OSI (as DFSG) and the OSD
(in current form) is the organization's core mission.
> So OSI should allow (and perhaps even support) attribution provisions
to fulfill its objectives and
> these objectives should take precedence above the ten definitions - if reasonable
> attribution provisions don't comply with #10 change #10 and develop specific
> rules with regards to attribution.
This would be the tail wagging the dog. Why not change the OSD so that
shared source becomes OSI-approved too? Because we're trying to
persuade companies to use real OSD-compliant licenses. Letting them
persuade us to call non-compliant licenses open source is a betrayal of
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the License-discuss