<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Russell Nelson <<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com">nelson@crynwr.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
  
    
  
  <div>
    <div>On 3/17/20 6:14 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div>
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div dir="ltr">
                <div dir="ltr">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div dir="ltr">
                      <div dir="ltr">
                        <div dir="ltr">
                          <div class="gmail_quote">
                            <div>If OSI is to be the custodian of open
                              source, it needs to be representative of
                              the open source community at large. Not
                              based on a winner takes model, which is,
                              by definition, not representative.</div>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Sure, but Ethical Software isn't Open Source. That's what we keep
      telling you. If you want to prevent "unethical" entities from
      using your software, you are separating yourself from the Open
      Source community.</p>
    <p></p></div></blockquote><div>A lot of open source practitioners would disagree with that statement. Who makes the rules? Ultimately the community does. Not the OSI.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, the OSI can decide to ignore the broader open source community by deciding that only the community that agrees with its definition of open source is relevant. That seems like an untenable position, however. And it won't do anything from preventing others to think of what they are doing as open source and call it that way. Frankly, that would be quite a big footgun.</div><div><br></div><div>--tobie</div></div></div>