<!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">
Rick, you are confusing me.<br>
<br>
Below you mention that OSI should support mandated-advertising
licenses. However, multiple times I've read comments originating from
you (besides others) that looks at such licenses from the perspective
of whether they aim to impair commerce. Although sometimes it could be
hard to judge motivations, I'm assuming that in many cases this will be
true (you can't blame people to try and take the advantages of open
source while minimizing the potential risks). For me a key question is
if trying to impair commerce is in itself a reason to not approve a
license? If there is no restriction for anyone making use of the
program (#6) but for some it will just be less attractive (and there
could be hundreds of reasons why this is true), is it then still open
source?<br>
<br>
I do apologize for perhaps missing the point (I'm new to this
discussion group and I'm asking questions to truly get a deeper
understanding of OSI). Going through the website most arguments against
Exhibit B licenses seem to be the notion of impairing commerce. These
arguments even surfaced in this group in relation to the SocialText
license and attribution in general. So it felt off-topic to discuss
these licenses in relation to OSD#10. Don't get me wrong, I understand
the rationale of #10 but it feels like there is a dis-agreement on the
more crucial issue of attribution in general.<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
Rick Moen wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20070120220924.GS14851@linuxmafia.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Quoting Peter Kloprogge (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Kloprogge@planet.nl">Kloprogge@planet.nl</a>):
</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. But
it doesn't make sense to use #10 as a stick to try and get rid of
those provisions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Nobody's trying to use OSD#10 as a stick to try to get rid of those
provisions. Indeed, speaking for myself, I'm not trying to get rid of
them at all, in the first place. I think there's nothing _inherently_
wrong with a mandated-advertising licence for Web 2.0 and similar apps,
and this is a licence space where OSI _should_ help, if possible.
The concern involving OSD#10 is limited to the merits of its fundamental
idea, which is really simple: no dependence on particular technologies,
which we know from past decades' experience prevents code from being
adapted to new niches. In particular, since the Generic Attribution
Provision patch requires a "display", and since its advocates (IIRC)
have clarified that they really _do_ mean a mandated display, then
covered code cannot be used to make daemons and similar no-display code.
Ergo, that paragraph as presently worded is simply not OSD-compliant --
irrespective of other concerns.
However, in your broader argument, you are furiously arguing with a
position nobody here holds, and nobody here has ever articulated.
And, frankly, I think you already knew that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Especially smaller companies (entrepeneurs with low
marketing power) will look for open source to improve software and to
develop a market position. They'll put relatively large amounts of
investments themselves to develop the software and to build a business
around it. Some of them just can't accept the risk that a big company
with monopolistic behavior takes their work and investments and use
their marketing power to make it seem like it's theirs.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Guess what? That's always been the case with open source. If you
didn't see them the first time, please go read Michael Tiemann's
excellent comments about how CYGNUS gradually came to convince
embedded-code developers that open source made sense for them despite
facing more "market position" threats than our little gang of about 20
Web 2.0 companies have ever dreamed of.
If you (generic "you") simply can't bear the thought of some other firm
using your code to compete against you, then maybe open source just
isn't for you, in the first place.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Let the market decide:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I've heard quite enough of intellectually bankrupt "Let the market
decide" arguments from these 20-odd tiny-yet-pushy firms and their
sundry hangers-on. Sorry, this question is not being consigned to
"the market": It's to be judged by the OSI Board.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>