<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>OSI enforcement? (Was Re: Microsoft use of the term "Open Source")</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText73966 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>B Galliart wrote: </FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>On Dec 31, 2007 2:45 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com> wrote:<BR>>> OF COURSE OSI CLAIMS AUTHORITY OVER TERMS SUCH AS OPEN SOURCE.<BR>>><BR>>> Any doubt about it now?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>>Why should QNX care what the OSI has to say when they write a press release? </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>></FONT><FONT size=2>From where I sit, the OSI has no sting when it raises objections. </FONT><FONT size=2> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>The most ironic thing is that from where I sit, it is Microsoft's application for OSI Approval that gives the OSI the most "street cred" in the popular press. Why should QNX care? MS did.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Didn't you JUST argue that MS is trying to have its cake and eat it too by gaining the "marketing edge" of OSI approval but "disrespect" the OSI for...I dunno...making a mistake on a web page? What marketing edge? The one QNX doesn't care about or the one the MS seems to value so much?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>And your complaint was over a bio package for AIDS researchers having an academic vs "open source" license? Please. The source is there. Researchers can fold, spindle and multilate the code to their hearts content as long as its for non-commercial use*.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>How horrible of Microsoft. That completely violates the tenets of open source (lower case, no TM)...which I'm afraid pre-dates the OSD (or Free Software) as a practice that was given a name and not the other way around.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>And you wonder why the popular press might not take the open source community's objections too seriously.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>>> Plonk. And I speak as the OSI postmaster when I say that.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>>In the OSI FAQ is: "...freedom sometimes means allowing activities you<BR>>don't like. That does not mean we endorse such activities—quite the<BR>>contrary! But it does mean that we hold freedom higher than we do<BR>>oppression, censorship, or discrimination."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>I hope that Chris did not actually get banned as the plonk implies. Because from an outsider's perspective it look like a rant from someone too hung over from too much new year partying to be making any official pronouncements for any organization.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Nigel</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>* presumably this includes use at commercial entities but the lines are increasingly blurred given the collaboration between academic and corporate teams. I would be very surprised if MS actually precludes IAVI commercial research partners from use of MsCompBio as opposed to keeping the package out of commercial software products for researchers.</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>