[License-discuss] OSI is not a trade association

[Christine Hall]

Well we've certainly successfully convinced business to adopt open 
source. To the point that they make open source for everyday computer 
users seem insignificant by comparison.

Christine Hall
Publisher & Editor
FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
http://fossforce.com

On 7/3/19 8:55 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> There was a time when the OSI believed that the more licenses the 
> merrier, as long as they all complied with the OSD.  At that time we 
> were trying to encourage companies to release their code as FLOSS, no 
> matter what annoying conditions they put on it.  Only later did the 
> costs to both developers and end users of having zillions of slightly 
> different and incompatible licensing regimes sink in.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:46 PM Christine Hall <christine at fossforce.com 
> <mailto:christine at fossforce.com>> wrote:
> 
>     It's my understanding that OSI has always campaigned against license
>     proliferation.
> 
>     Christine Hall
>     Publisher & Editor
>     FOSS Force: Keeping tech free
>     http://fossforce.com
> 
>     On 7/3/19 5:29 PM, James wrote:
>      > On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:17 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com
>     <mailto:bruce at perens.com>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> James, I understand the problem of the companies pushing for
>     that, but a license that everyone can use except Amazon, or SaaS
>     companies, or SaaS companies over a certain size, isn't copyleft and
>     isn't "strong" copyleft. It's just restrictive. Heather and Kyle
>     came up with "Polyform", which IMO sounds too much like "colorforms"
>     but it's fine as long as you don't call it "Open Source" or "Free
>     Software".
>      >
>      > Perhaps I didn't phrase clearly, but I wasn't disagreeing with you
>      > about not calling it "Open Source" or "Free Software". I agree it
>      > shouldn't be called that.
>      >
>      > Clarified for you, my comments meant to state:
>      > 1) OSI should campaign against proliferation as part of it's mission.
>      > 2) Companies are now trying out restrictive, non-open source
>     licenses.
>      > I think it's a mistake, and what they really want is normal copyleft.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > James
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > License-discuss mailing list
>      > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>      >
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>      >
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>