InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Wed Jan 31 01:16:39 UTC 2007
Matt Asay wrote:
> Sorry, Rick. I misread your original message.
> As for my company's use of attribution, two responses:
> 1. I don't think anyone on this list gives these companies the benefit of a
There's really no doubt involved. It's obvious that the companies are
calling calling licenses that aren't OSI-approved "Open Source", and
many people (myself included) dislike that.
I've been pushing the company toward the GPL since the day I
The real concern is with these companies as a whole, not you personally.
> 2. It's OSI that is being slow on the attribution debate, not the
> companies. A license has been submitted. The ball is in OSI's court. As
> such, it doesn't do much good to further hector the companies. They've done
> what has been asked of them by OSI. We just have to wait and see at this
First, the "license" (GAP) submitted was not a license actually being
used. More importantly, as it became clear that the original GAP would
likely be rejected (at least to me), SocialText said they would submit
another license (MPL+modified GAP) this week. I interpret that as an
implicit withdrawal of the original GAP. Thus, the ball is in their court.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the License-discuss