On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote: > > > Quoting Francesco Poli (frx@firenze.linux.it): > > > > [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] > > > > > OSI based its OSD on the DFSG.... > > > > More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote > [...] > > Yes, that's the whole story in more detail, thanks for expanding my > summary. > > > > > (Incidentally, Debian should consider updating DFSG to incorporate > > wording similar to that of OSD#10.) > > Yes, I agree. /me to ... > [...] > > > However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, > > > that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something > > > acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... > > > > I strongly dispute your assertion, having been active on OSI's > > license-discuss mailing list for years and participated in pretty much > > every evaluation there (while having been mostly a lurker here). > > Would you mind please citing a few examples? > > Well, my opinion is that MPL, CDDL, QPL, APSL, and PHP Licenses (to name > a few) should *not* have been certified. > > Please note that this is *my* own opinion, shared by other debian-legal > regulars in some cases, but not necessarily in all of them. > > Moreover, I should re-stress the usual disclaimers: > IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. What I find really unfortunate is that whenever a new license appears it is completely unclear how it relates to the other open source licenses. I mean it is great that the fsf at least has a page listing which license is in their opinion GPL compatible (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) but it is already unfortunate that licenses conflict ( discussed for the GPL at http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html ). In my eyes the newly OSI should also provide a license compatibility matrix and each new license to be certified should clearly state how it relates to all the other oss licenses... For example I really don't know how the CPL (IBM-PL) relates to the MPL, CDDL etc... [...] > > > (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term > gained: > > > everyone now uses and abuses the term "Open Source" to mean > > > anything, just since it's a trendy term...). > > > > The abuse of the term by, e.g., Centric CRM is surely not OSI's > fault. > > They vocally oppose it, for one thing. And, actually, attempting to > > do so is starting to emerge as a losing ploy, because it brings bad > > publicity. > > I'm glad that something is being done to fight against misuse of the > term "Open Source", but I see little evidence that misusing it brings > bad publicity (even assuming that there *exists* any form of publicity > which qualifies as bad...). > I see and hear many many people who are ignorant about the meanings of > the terms "Open Source" software and "Free Software". Well, the > majority of them (that is: of ignorant people) seem to only have heard > about something called "Open Source" and, since they do not understand > what it means, they misuse it and abuse it in all contexts... Well of course most of the people have better things to do (read they just want to get their work done) than to care about licenses. So they just want to make their software open source such that others can potentially benefit and so do they... nevertheless if OSI is enforcing the correct use of that term more strictly its value will increase a lot... Soeren -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part