<!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">
Which # are you referring within the definition that limits an
attribution provision? #6 or #10 (or perhaps another)?<br>
<br>
I cannot comment on your other statements as I'm too new to open
source. But it does sound weird if the execution of the definition (in
10 statements) becomes OSI's mission instead of having a clear/mission
that is executed by 'managing' the definition. Any good management will
have a clear mission and vision and the OSD should be the best possible
definition towards the set mission. So I would be very disappointed in
OSI if indeed the OSD is the core mission!<br>
<br>
To state that, within my rationale, we could just as well accept shared
source is an insult. If distribution is key to OSI's mission, shared
source won't comply!<br>
<br>
And once we start reading the front page it also mentions: "This site
is still evolving as we think through the implications of open source
in the commercial world. We don't claim to have all the answers yet, so
<a href="mailto:osi@opensource.org">mail us</a> with your thoughts and
criticisms." And that's what I'm doing, contemplating about how (what I
expect to be) OSI's mission could be better served in the commercial
world.<br>
<br>
So the question remains: is an attribution provision against the
current OSD and, if so, is that a wise choice?<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Matthew Flaschen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid45B2B42E.9080809@gatech.edu" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Peter Kloprogge wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Reading the arguments I get the strong impression that many feel an attribution
provision is not supporting the general open source idea, but there is no
definition that limits an attribution provision.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Actually, yes there is. It's called the Open Source Definition (not to
mention the Free Software definition and the Debian Free Software
Guidelines).
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Just to go back one
step, the home page of opensource.org clearly states:
" The *basic idea behind open source* is very simple: When programmers can read,
redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software
evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can
happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software
development, seems astonishing."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Why start at the second paragraph? The first paragraph (indeed the
first sentence) says "Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit
corporation dedicated to managing and *promoting the Open Source
Definition* for the good of the community [...]" [emphasis added].
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">and it also states:
"Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world."
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Not to cater blindly to the commercial world, but to persuade them.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The key issue here is that providing the possibility to add an attribution
provision doesn't hurt the basic idea (if enough contributors accept it) and it
certainly helps making a case to the commercial world.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The basic idea is the OSD. The OSD predates OSI (as DFSG) and the OSD
(in current form) is the organization's core mission.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So OSI should allow (and perhaps even support) attribution provisions
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->to fulfill its objectives and
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">these objectives should take precedence above the ten definitions - if reasonable
attribution provisions don't comply with #10 change #10 and develop specific
rules with regards to attribution.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This would be the tail wagging the dog. Why not change the OSD so that
shared source becomes OSI-approved too? Because we're trying to
persuade companies to use real OSD-compliant licenses. Letting them
persuade us to call non-compliant licenses open source is a betrayal of
OSI's mission.
Matthew Flaschen
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>