Should the three new criteria be in the OSD?

[Chuck Swiger]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Eric S. Raymond writes:
>> My intention is that the people who have been putting heavy pressure
>> on OSI to solve the proliferation problem are going to get what they
>> want, and they're going to get it good and hard.
>
> Yup.  OSDL is one of the entities piling on the pressure, [ ... ]

This is remarkable.  What kind of pressure could the OSDL members 
possibly apply which would make one bit of difference to the OSI or the 
members of the OSI board?

Are the OSDL members going to stop using Open Source software?
Are they not going to submit new licenses for OSI approval in the 
future?
Are they not going to display the OSI certification mark?

Are they going to publicly assert that the OSI board is composed of 
horrible people who approve too many OSD-compliant licenses?  Tsk.  :-)

> Myself, I think that OSDL should *start* by getting its
> house in order.  It should work with its members to get them to
> relicense under one of the OSDL's proposed three licenses.  If they
> can't do that with their own members, then they have no reason, right,
> or place to tell us what to do.

Indeed not, although clearly some OSDL members *have* tried to tell the 
OSI board what to do.  However, it is not clear why this would affect 
what the OSI board does.

[ If they were polite about the matter, be just as polite when you 
thank them for their unsolicited suggestions.  If they said something 
worth considering, consider it if you wish to, otherwise go about your 
business just as you would anyway. ]

-- 
-Chuck