DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):

> Perhaps OSI's neutral stance on proprietary software is born from
> pragmatism but it does allow the OSI to be inclusive rather than 
> exclusive.

What "neutral stance on proprietary software"?  Sorry, I think this
assertion is quite blatantly, so to speak, used cow food.

http://www.opensource.org/articles-of-incorporation has:

  The specific purposes of the corporation are to (1) educate the public
  about the advantages of open source software [software that users are
  free to modify and redistribute]; (2) encourage the software community
  to participate in open source software development; (3) identify how
  software users' objectives are best served through open source software;
  (4) persuade organizations and software authors to distribute source
  software freely they otherwise would not distribute; (5) provide
  resources for sharing information about open source software and
  licenses; (6) assist attorneys to craft open source licenses; (7) manage
  a certification program to allow use of one or more certification marks
  in association with open source software; and (8) advocate for open
  source principles.

(http://www.opensource.org/bylaws reiterates that statement of purpose
as Article III, Section 2.)

http://www.opensource.org/history has:

  The strategy session grew from a relization that the Netscape 
  announcement had created a precious window of time within which 
  we might finally be able to get the corporate world to listen to 
  what the hacker community had to teach about the superiority of 
  an open development process.

A consistent agenda of advocating open source over proprietary software
and explaining to the broader world its advantages does not constitute 
a "neutral stance on proprietary software".

So, sorry, wrong.  Try again.