OSI enforcement?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

Philippe Verdy [mailto:verdy_p at wanadoo.fr] wrote:
>Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] wrote:
>> 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.

>Unproven facts. The FSF has never condemned the existence of proprietary
>schemes, but the fact that free software should have an equal right of
>existence. ("Free as freedom" as they claim since always, not "free as as
>beer"). The FSF supports the development of commerce, and even prohibits the
>restriction of its licences against commercial use (so CC-NC licences are
>incompatible and really non free.)

Given that the founders of OSI are around, I'm sure they can correct me if
I am wrong when I stipulate that they are not "hidden supporters of proprietary 
licensing schemes" with some kind of secret desire to destroy FOSS.
 
Now wikipedia is not what I'd call a "trusted source" but I would presume that
the statement:
 
"The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label 
"open source" came out of a strategy session[4] held at Palo Alto, California, in 
reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for 
Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson 
who suggested "open source", Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, 
Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the 
release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and 
confrontational connotations of the term free software."
 
would have been corrected long ago if it were false since many, hopefully all, 
of these folks are still around.
 
Whom, pray tell, are you accusing to be "hidden supporters of proprietary 
licensing schemes"?
 
You assertion that the FSF has never condemned the existance of proprietary 
schemes have been shown to be false...or at least disingenuos...unless you
belive the RMS does not speak for the FSF...
 
>The FSF can't be accused of creating a polarization, because it has existed
> long before OSI.
 
I would think that calling closed source "unethical" might have some polarization 
value. 
 
>Who is actually polarizing the debate? Not the OSI itself or its supporters.
>It's clearly the supporters of closed proprietary schemes trying to divide
>the movement, like they have already done against by severely impacting the
>"public domain" (which was popular in the 1970's and the early 1980's) so
>much that it is now very insecure and considered invalid and unusable (too
>risky to use for long term projects) by many corporate or governmental
>users, because it is now easily defeated by laws with retroactive effects
>and by patents that can steal almost everything in it.

My impression is that public domain releases were mostly overtaken by 
permissive licenses that differ from public domain only in that they say 
"DON'T SUE ME IF MY CODE SUCKS".
 
That's a pretty important disclaimer for some of us. :)
 
Nigel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080109/cfc6b048/attachment.html>