License Committee Report for September 2008
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Fri Nov 7 04:08:56 UTC 2008
Alex Wang wrote:
>> The general concept (preventing people from making modifications to your
> software (for whatever reason)) is not acceptable in the Open Source
> The fact is UOML license doesn't prevent modification! The restriction of
> modification from UOML license is less than restriction of modification from
>> The people here understand the idea, and are trying to help you understand
> The topic is not what OSD is, the topic is what OSD should be. You do
> understand the idea of current OSD, but it is different from understanding
> what kind of OSD will benefit open source movement.
I don't think you have any right to suggest you understand what will
benefit the open source movement better than the OSI. In the 10 years
since the OSI formed, the free/open source movement has succeeded beyond
belief. I think they wrote the OSD basically right the first time (and
OSD #10 was also an improvement).
>> Nobody has said that your goal is not worthy. We've simply said that it
> makes your software not be Open Source. If you want it to be called Open
> Source, it must BE Open Source.
> Open source for promoting a specific standard would be widely requirement.
Yes, your license would be popular. It would expand the "open source"
movement. But this is not a popularity contest; we want what people
"open source" to really /be/ open source.
> I beleive you undertsand this
> principle since OSI agreed to accept business usage, instead of insisting on
You don't know how ridiculous that statement is. Red Hat and other
businesses make millions of dollars developing and selling GPL software.
More information about the License-review