<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.10.0">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 08:28 -0800, Danese Cooper wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">In our experience, if we can get someone who is *actually* using a </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">given license to work with us we stand a much better chance of </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">working through the issues towards satisfactory resolution in favor </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">of true Open Source. This process typically involves some back </FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, assuming a premise: If the holders of the licenses were primarily interested in ensuring their license reflects their desire to be "true open source" this process of back and forth can often result in constructive dialog to help make the license meet OSD. It is my belief these companies (I know of no individuals who have released projects with forced UI attribution clauses in MPL) are more concerned with the market effect of "open source" than in the actual "open source" effect (code contribution, free from vendor lockin, etc). They can receive the market effect of "open source" without OSI submission indefinitely. The other "side benefit" for their lengthy delay in submission (submission takes about 30 seconds, and attention to follow up emails so TIME and RESOURCE are NOT an issue) is they can now grow "communities" of people that believe they are part of the "open source" community and hence, demand to be "represented" by OSI as part of the FOSS community.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">consequences. I can see only limited utility in debating and </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">possibly indicting a proxy license when the folks facing the actual </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">business case aren't representing their side of the question. As I </FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree, but understand your point. I understand that in a world where people submitting are genuinely interested in making their "LICENSES reflect OSD" instead of the "OSD to allow their LICENSES," participation by the company is paramount. The "public" deserves to know whether or not some of these popular (and GOOD, it should be mentioned they are REALLY GOOD) products are actually what they say they are: open source. By not submitting to OSI they are, in essence, diminishing the crucial role of vetting license to meet OSD.<BR>
<BR>
So, I see great utility where you only see limited. I really wish an exhibit B company would submit (I'm trying to convince one myself) to just get it out. If they're so confident they are open source, meet the OSD then clearly their license will shine with radiant light when exposed to the light of day. Only a proper approval process will determine meeting the OSD.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">said in my blog, I think we have such a company nearly ready to </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">submit their license and rationale and to enter into an active debate </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">that might result in language everyone can agree upon. Its been a&#-1;</FONT>&#-1;
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure. As long as they are an Exhibit B (not some other UI attribution less commonly used) company and will serve as the same template for the others, I think this would be a great benefit for the FOSS community. That'd be great!
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">tricky thing to get any of them to submit for fear of backlash. </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">These are not mega-corporations using the licenses in question. They </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">are typically small and VC funded and they are pioneering a new </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">business space. The company we expect to get a license submission </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">from isn't full of evil people trying to undermine Open Source, and </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">it is the hope of the OSI Board that they would be treated fairly on </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">this list.</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd expect their license will be reviewed on it's specific merits, not the company behind it (why I thought WPL was valuable). I'm guessing the approval process measures the explicit text of the license to the OSD and does not consider company, intentions, personalities, etc. I think that the only fair way of assessing a license since the license can be used by many companies (running the full spectrum of "evilness" and copyright can be sold along with companies). <BR>
<BR>
I think reviewing the WPL would have actually BENEFITED these companies in that no one company has to be the "focus" of this debate. The license can stand on it's own individual merits and is not tied to an actual company or brand. However, the OSI has made clear (and I understand) they do not want to review licenses other than those submitted by original authors. <BR>
<BR>
I personally don't believe they are evil people who are intentionally trying to change open source. I believe most of them just talk only to each other about open source and are all relatively new to the concept/space. They believe that their $$ investment is somehow different than all the previous $$ spent (ie, our code needs special open source rights compared to other open source projects); I don't understand this but don't believe it is sinister.<BR>
<BR>
As I understand it then, WPL is no longer pending approval.<BR>
<BR>
Kind Regards,<BR>
Nick
</BODY>
</HTML>