DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 10 20:06:00 UTC 2008
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
What "neutral stance on proprietary software"? Sorry, I think this
assertion is quite blatantly, so to speak, used cow food.
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
(http://www.opensource.org/bylaws reiterates that statement of purpose
as Article III, Section 2.)
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.
More information about the License-discuss