[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses



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.

[...]
> > 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.

> 
> > IMHO, the term "Open Source" has gradually become totally
> > meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI
> 
> I know of not even one example of same.  To the contrary, I was one of
> several license-discuss participants who helped OSI reach consensus
> to reject MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B badgeware licences, for example.

I'm glad to hear about a rejection of a license that fails to satisfy
the OSD.
However, as I said above, I disagree with many other cases where
licenses have been approved instead...

> 
> 
> > (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...


I hope this explains.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpfjiBJh3SjD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: