[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Jun 11 22:31:56 UTC 2012

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

> On 6/11/12 3:54 PM, "Chad Perrin" <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> >Rather, I think the complaint is about people making hypocritical
> >statements about exactly the kind of behavior they exhibit with regard to
> >source code appropriation....

Oddly enough, in the two _actual_ cases of code appropriation anyone
eventually coughed up (ath5k and g4l), I was among the few people who
actively told the malefactors in no uncertain terms, in public, that 
they had greatly erred and needed to cease their copyright violation.

The public Freshmeat.net comments in the g4l case were particularly
striking, and I wish I could still point to them, but VA Research^W^W
VA Linux Systems^W^W^W SourceForge, Inc.^W^W GeekNet, Inc. seem to have 
flushed all comments away in a site redesign.

> >, and about people pretending there is no difference between two
> >different edge cases of license effects when, in fact, there is a
> >difference.

The language about a 'fixed pool of open source developers' is
revealing:  One notes the assumption of entitlement to mindshare.
Perhaps the easiest solution would be to regard copyleft as a
subcategory of proprietary development.  Then it'd suddenly become OK

More information about the License-discuss mailing list