OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Wed Jan 2 05:05:11 UTC 2008

B Galliart wrote: 

On Dec 31, 2007 2:45 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
>> Any doubt about it now?

>Why should QNX care what the OSI has to say when they write a press release? 

>From where I sit, the OSI has no sting when it raises objections.   

The most ironic thing is that from where I sit, it is Microsoft's application for OSI Approval that gives the OSI the most "street cred" in the popular press.  Why should QNX care?  MS did.

Didn't you JUST argue that MS is trying to have its cake and eat it too by gaining the "marketing edge" of OSI approval but "disrespect" the OSI for...I dunno...making a mistake on a web page?  What marketing edge?  The one QNX doesn't care about or the one the MS seems to value so much?

And your complaint was over a bio package for AIDS researchers having an academic vs "open source" license?  Please.  The source is there.  Researchers can fold, spindle and multilate the code to their hearts content as long as its for non-commercial use*.

How horrible of Microsoft.  That completely violates the tenets of open source (lower case, no TM)...which I'm afraid pre-dates the OSD (or Free Software) as a practice that was given a name and not the other way around.

And you wonder why the popular press might not take the open source community's objections too seriously.

>> Plonk.  And I speak as the OSI postmaster when I say that.

>In the OSI FAQ is: "...freedom sometimes means allowing activities you
>don't like. That does not mean we endorse such activities-quite the
>contrary! But it does mean that we hold freedom higher than we do
>oppression, censorship, or discrimination."

I hope that Chris did not actually get banned as the plonk implies.  Because from an outsider's perspective it look like a rant from someone too hung over from too much new year partying to be making any official pronouncements for any organization.


* presumably this includes use at commercial entities but the lines are increasingly blurred given the collaboration between academic and corporate teams.   I would be very surprised if MS actually precludes IAVI commercial research partners from use of MsCompBio as opposed to keeping the package out of commercial software products for researchers.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080102/5c056fb4/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list