OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")
wgrayg at mountain.net
Sat Jan 5 09:19:31 UTC 2008
I agree with Philippe.
An 'OSI Inside' logo would make it easier for both the end-user and the
developer select software for use and for redevelopment. The developer
that wants to make 'OSI open source' software would be assured that the
source code they are using is 'good to go' from the start and not have
to try to deal with a mess later on if it turns out that it was not.
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Users actually don't care much about the terms themselves; what they want is
> a way to assert that the licence is effectively free for use by them, and
> secured against future proprietary claims by others; for this they need some
> certification, and this can come in different ways:
> * by OSI making the list of approved licences really visible, wellknown and
> easily verifiable by the public
> * by OSI developing a proprietary logo that can be displayed in softwares
> that use compliant licences.
> * by software makers linking their softwares or licences to the OSI website
> showing the statement about the licence approval.
> * by OSI becoming an housekeeper for the licence text originals (to avoid
> that others use slightly altered licences that could still be binding users
> with non free terms, even though it is linking to some page on the OSI site
> where the effective licence used by the software could be easily confused by
> the licence approved by OSI): each approved licence by OSI should have a
> well defined URL, giving its approval status and the official text. The OSI
> site would require that anyone linking to it in association with a licence
> would be forced to use only the text as permanently stored in the OSI
> housekeeping area.
More information about the License-discuss