Re: OSI affiliation
Philip Hands <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...]
> So whatever we might think about the merits of the "Open Source" term,
> it hardly seems like a step forward to render such references into
> hanging links just at the point where policy makers are starting to get
> the message.
I agree with Phil. That is why my preference is for OSI to merge into
a continuing non-zombie group that could maintain web links and so on.
> Much better to try to ensure that that licenses list is actually sane,
> which is something we may be able to do something about if we affiliate,
There is no evidence for that yet. It's vapourware, isn't it? Or is
there some secret OSI-promises-to-reform-in-consultation-with-us part
of the proposed affiliation terms that I've missed?
Even worse, this sounds like the sort of constructive engagement
nonsense which is failing to change Big Oil, Big Power and things like
that (= no change for them, except they have access to
supposedly-ethical/activist investment funds).
This is backwards. Could interested debian developers go help reform
OSI and then, once it's reformed, suggest that the project affiliates?
> P.S. I encourage people to respond to the consultation mentioned above.
> It actually looks pretty good. [...]
I agree with Phil. Maybe some ideas/tips will be thrown around on
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/ before the consultation
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/