[License-discuss] Evolving the License Review process for OSI

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> And why obsess over (supposed) gaps of ideology when you actually want
> the exact same outcomes as the other guys?  Aren't outcomes what matter?
>

I agree outcomes are what matters.   This isn't a variation of the Open
Source vs Free Software debate.

The "Open Source" label is presumed to bring us to the outcomes I'm
interested in, and I believe there was no question of that truth when the
OSI was founded.  That potential for shared outcomes is what I'm not as
confident about any more.  If OSI decides to approve licenses which will
lead to an incompatible outcome, then what we lost was the utility of that
label and advocacy behind it as a short-form to use while advocating for
that outcome.

The problem is not unique to the OSI, as the FSF has also approved the
Affero clauses being added to the GPL.  While I believe trying to restrict
mere use of software is far worse than restricting private modification,
they are both in a direction I feel is harmful to software
transparency/accountability/freedom.


I use the term FLOSS when talking to politicians as the specific groups
aren't what matters to me.  In that we also agree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190526/6b220ee0/attachment.html>