[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Matthew Garrett]

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:42:06PM -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> It seems realistically that they don't currently.  However, this is
> another incentive (besides simply protecting the integrity of the term),
> for OSI to speak out loudly and frequently about what is and isn't open
> source.

I think there's arguably a distinction between "OSI Approved" and "open 
source". If I produce a license that's trivially OSD-compliant, software 
under it ought to be considered open source. On the other hand, there's 
a good chance that it wouldn't pass the anti-proliferation critera, and 
so may not be OSI approved.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org