<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Open Source licensing under the OSI definition is in many (including my
own) eyes a good thing. But you've got to ask: Who<br>
benefits from keeping open source an 'undiluted'. Certainly those who
have code under OSI approved licenses would benefit.<br>
Certainly those who would like to use and leverage code written under
OSI approved licenses. I believe consumers of those<br>
projects and their derivatives benefit as well. <br>
<br>
The OSI has always had <i>someone's</i> best interest at heart in its
propagation and mentoring of 'open source'.<br>
Why, just look at the members of the board (who's names should be
posted somewhere conspicuously on the OSI site<br>
considering their non-profit status . . .). The interests are
self-serving, make no mistake. Any idea of altruism is long<br>
out the door when it comes to that and probably could not have been
applied in the first case when it comes to 'open source'.<br>
Even RMS (and please take no offense here, as none is intended!) enjoys
the fruits derived from his standing in the (Free) and<br>
Open Source software would. BTW - that's GNU Linux if you don't mind.
;) <br>
<br>
I certainly don't, nor do I think does anyone else who, earns our bread
and butter from open source<br>
software blame them. <br>
<br>
All that being said, the OSI has done an excellent job in walking the
fine line in ensuring the benefit of using<br>
an OSI approved license has remained as such (a benefit) for all those
that choose to do so. The ideals<br>
of Open Participation and Open Standards are still in plain view
there. And until those start to fade, the OSI<br>
is as good as any other entity to uphold what open source is.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DShofi@atmi.com">DShofi@atmi.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midOFA3BA9E7B.6CE3DA5F-ON85257259.0018FF7B-85257259.0019A85F@atmi.com"
type="cite"><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2">Michael wrote:</font>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2"><tt>On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 23:10 -0500, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:DShofi@atmi.com">DShofi@atmi.com</a>
wrote:<br>
>> From there, it is the market that will drive good behavior
with
regard<br>
>> to use of the term (as opposed to the certification mark). <br>
<br>
>Well, I suppose this is a policy issue for the OSI. Personally, I'm<br>
>skeptical of this approach. Are you familiar with the term<br>
>'greenwashing'?<br>
<br>
>It seems to me that even though the OSI has no property interest in
the<br>
>term 'open source', The OSI does have a moral interest and
authority,<br>
>and there is definitely plenty of room for the OSI to counter,
loudly<br>
>and clearly, attempts at corporate 'openwashing'. No other
organization<br>
>can currently fill this role.</tt></font>
<br>
<br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2">I thought that I made myself clear.
I do not disagree with the OSI's vital role as moral authority,
consultant,
certification mark provider, etc. as Michael references above.
However,
I do not recommend that anyone fool themselves into thinking that the
OSI
or anyone else has any proprietary right to "open source" as
a textual term so as to require approval before use thereof. That
is my sole point.</font>
<br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2"><br>
David</font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>