<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2019-07-03 1:34 p.m., Scott Peterson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALORxPkMTwcSrNHCuuaMaQP5+vmALSZF=7iwCBA+wGrjsakVEw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<table border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
If the Open Source Initiative was a trade association
tasked with providing efficient, clear determinations of
what did and did not conform to some standard that had
been agreed among competitors in an industry, then it
would be important for the organization to have detailed
processes by which determinations are made, and it could
make sense for the organization to actively create
guidance that makes clear how the latest factors of
current interest in the industry affect how products
will fit with respect to the lines around the
definition.<br>
<br>
But that is not the role of the Open Source Initiative.
<br>
The document that is the Open Source Definition is a
tool, not an end in itself.<br>
One formalistic view of what drives the OSI can be seen
in its bylaws.<br>
<a href="https://opensource.org/bylaws"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/bylaws</a><br>
<br>
For me, the relevance of this observation developed as I
watched license-discuss@ and license-review@ over the
last many months. While not directly on topic for the
ongoing threads, I see this observation as continuing
have sufficient relevance (albeit on the edges of what
is being discussed) that I have finally decided to post
this comment.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I am not sure if the OSI's behaviour is predicated by its
organizational structure. In my opinion the main obstacle to more
detailed processes (and many other activities it could perform
within its remit) is a lack of resources. Over the past 20 years
open source has gone from a crazy idea to how the world works, and
expecting the OSI to fulfill a worldwide,
technology-industry-wide, mainstream mission with a volunteer
board and 1.5 staff is not realistic. <br>
</p>
<p>So in my opinion, the major difference if the OSI was a trade
association is that it would (perhaps) have the resources
commensurate with its mission. So if you're reading this and your
employer is not<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://opensource.org/sponsors"> listed as a sponsor</a>,
please consider asking your management to support the OSI's
mission via a donation. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>