<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: DRAFT FAQ: Free vs. Open</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText14882 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu] wrote<BR></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>>Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:<BR>>> Perhaps OSI's neutral stance on proprietary software is born from<BR>>> pragmatism but it does allow the OSI to be inclusive rather than<BR>>> exclusive.<BR><BR>>They are not neutral to proprietary software. As noted earlier, OSI<BR>>supports open source "better quality, higher reliability, more<BR>>flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."<BR>>Moreover, it's bylaws (<A href="http://opensource.org/bylaws">http://opensource.org/bylaws</A>) say (among many<BR>>other things) that they are to "advocate for open source principles".<BR>>OSI takes a very different approach from the FSF, but is clear that they<BR>>are not neutral.<BR><BR>>Matt Flaschen<BR></FONT></P><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Your objection is the same as Rick's. If you don't like the term neutral</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>perhaps you could provide alternative wording ("non-hostile" is awkward</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>and still has negative implications) </FONT><FONT size=2>to describe OSI's position.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Again, if OSI's position is that closed source is "unethical" then the FAQ</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>should reflect that.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>As I said in the other email, one can believe that open source is a</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>superior method but still be positive (or neutral) about the value of closed </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>source. A neutral opinion vs positive or negative is probably more in</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>line with the official stance, neither praising nor condemning closed source</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>development.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>To quote ESR: "repeatedly exhorted open-source developers that we need </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>to be <EM>for</EM> software quality, not just <EM>against</EM> something".</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>This is an inclusive rather than exclusive position. If this is indeed </FONT><FONT size=2>false it </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>should be clearly stated in any FAQ.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I am of the opinion that the philospohical position of the OSI within the FAQ</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>should be provided by the OSI board to clearly describe the official position.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>There are many things that can be determined by consensus but I'm not sure</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>that is an effective mechanism for this particular item.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Nigel</DIV></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>