Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Tue Jan 8 22:52:13 UTC 2008
Philippe Verdy [mailto:verdy_p at wanadoo.fr]
> If OSI would mean "freedom", I would applaude this, if at least the OSI
> movement could reconcile its positions with the FSF. I do belive that
> there's much more to gain by rejoining the two movements, and put an end to
> the split that occurred in the past, most propably motivated by some hidden
> supporters of proprietary licencing schemes that tried to divide the common
> interests, and infiltrate some doubts and fears within the spirit of
> deciders in organizations.
> We can see now how this split is damageable, and how the proprietary
> licencing supporters are trying to defeat the free and open-source movement
> by legal threats: they have largely supported the unification of all rights
> related laws into a single expression "intellectual property rights" and
> they have won what they were looking for, because now they have
> international treaties and laws throughout the world to support the concept.
I think these statements clearly show the difference between the open source
and free software communities and why they are indeed separate.
For me, proprietary software is not the enemy, we can be both "open
source supporters" and "proprietary licensing supporters" at the
very same time.
So, no, I don't believe that the split was "most probably motivated by some hidden
supporters of proprietary licensing schemes" but a reaction to the polarization
of the issue by free software proponents.
Given the two communities I suspect that any "reconciliation" would be
very one sided. I really doubt the FSF is going to abandon the position
that closed source software is unethical.
And saying that OSI (or open source folks in general) doesn't support freedom
(because your definition of freedom differs) really doesn't help your cause.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss