InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

[Matt Asay]

Yes, I did mean that the GPL would be de facto considered ³bona fide open
source² rather than MPL+attribution, as the GPL is an OSI-approved license,
and the other is not (yet).  That¹s all.  I certainly wasn¹t calling MPL
less open source than GPL, if that¹s what you¹re concerned about.

Can¹t we get back to our day jobs?  The amount of time spent splitting hairs
on this mailing list could be better used.



From: Mitchell Baker <mitchell at mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:27:28 -0800
To: Matt Asay <mjasay at gmail.com>
Cc: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>, <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Matt

When you say that you have been pushing the company towards the GPL, it
sounds like you are using this as proof of your bone fides.  It sounds like
you are saying that the GPL is "more" open source than other licenses, like
Apache or MPL, though I don't know if this is your intent.  If not, I don't
understand the purpose of your comment.  And if so, it seems a divisive
approach.   

Do you think the use of GPL vs. MPL vs. Apache should cause a company to get
more or less "benefit of the doubt"?

Mitchell


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
> doubt.  I've been pushing the company toward the GPL since the day I
> started.  Given where we started, I'd say we've made tremendous progress.
> And much as I personally dislike attribution, I still hold that it's open
> source.  Not the open source I personally prefer, but open source.  (That
> said, I see the #10 argument and we are reviewing how to meet the
> community's concerns on that issue.  Stay tuned.
> 
> 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
> point.
> 
> Matt
> 
> P.S.  I'll update the blog again.  :-)
> 
> 
>   
>  
>>  
>> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> <mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com>
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:46:41 -0800
>> To: <license-discuss at opensource.org> <mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)
>> 
>> Quoting Matt Asay (mjasay at mac.com):
>> 
>>     
>>  
>>>  
>>> Thanks for calling this out.  I wasn't aware that they hadn't gone 'all the
>>> way' to the MPL.  I tried looking on their site, and didn't see it.  I just
>>> took The 451 Group's analysis of the move.
>>>       
>>>  
>>  
>> Didn't Larry L. teach you to read the fine print?  ;->
>> 
>>     
>>  
>>>  
>>> Sorry for the (somewhat) false alarm.  I'll make a note of it on the
>>> InfoWorld blog.
>>>       
>>>  
>>  
>> Unfortunately, your update (today) on your blog
>> 
(http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/pentaho_opens_u.ht>>
m
>> l)
>> appears to state the facts _backwards_.
>> 
>>    UPDATE: I just found out that Pentaho went to an MPL+attribution
>>    model.
>> 
>> Au contraire, sir!  They _were_ on an MPL + Exhibit B "badgeware"
>> licence, but recently corrected that to actual MPL -- _removing_ their
>> Exhibit B on the Pentalo BI Suite product -- citing as their reason
>> "input from the development community along with our strong belief in
>> being true open source contributors".  Which is of course exactly
>> congruent with what badgeware critic Nicholas Goodman (of Pentalo) has
>> been saying, you may recall (http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/).
>> 
>> Don't take my word for it.  Download tarballs and check for yourself
>> (that it's now _not_ MPL + "Exhibit B", but rather real MPL).  That's
>> after all the best way, these days, of making sure someone isn't
>> misrepresenting a licence, isn't it?
>> 
>> And after you do, will you kindly correct today's misstatement of fact,
>> and cease (in effect) maligning Pentaho by lumping them with the
>> companies (like, well,... yours) whose licensing model they have
>> _stopped_ using?
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> -- 
>> "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go
>> and 
>> make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window
>> and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return
>> to
>> the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube,
>> forum3000.org
>>     
>>  
>  
> 
> 
>   



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070130/2e441cb2/attachment.html>