License Committee Report for September 2008

[Matthew Flaschen]

Alex Wang wrote:
>> 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.

I don't think you have any right to suggest you understand what will
benefit the open source movement better than the OSI.  In the 10 years
since the OSI formed, the free/open source movement has succeeded beyond
belief.  I think they wrote the OSD basically right the first time (and
OSD #10 was also an improvement).

>> 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.

Yes, your license would be popular.  It would expand the "open source"
movement.  But this is not a popularity contest; we want what people
"open source" to really /be/ open source.

> I beleive you undertsand this
> principle since OSI agreed to accept business usage, instead of insisting on
> GPL.

You don't know how ridiculous that statement is.  Red Hat and other
businesses make millions of dollars developing and selling GPL software.

Matt Flaschen