License Committee Report for September 2008

[Alex Wang]

>The general concept (preventing people from making modifications to your
software (for whatever reason)) is not acceptable in the Open Source
community.
The fact is UOML license doesn't prevent modification! The restriction of
modification from UOML license is less than restriction of modification from
GPL.

>The people here understand the idea, and are trying to help you understand
it.  
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. Starting from the
benefit of open source movement, or starting from current OSD, that's the
difference between you and me. You choose to insist current OSD, regardless
whether it helps open source movement or not. There were many people argued
to Bush, they failed at that time, but republican is given up by US now. If
you insist on current OSD, OSI will become next Bush.

>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.
If Open Source accepts these cases, the team of Open Source will enlarge a
lot. If you choose to exclude these people or those people by various
reason, the said Open Source will not success. I beleive you undertsand this
principle since OSI agreed to accept business usage, instead of insisting on
GPL.

-Alex