On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 04:16:09AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > My major problem, though, is that Eric is acting with the support of the > > OSI board (although if you believe Bruce, even that's questionable), and > > that's about it. There's no community involvement at all. > We've already voted to establish a mailing list for discussing > licenses. I'm waiting for a few technical changes to announce the > list. In the meantime I can add you by hand if you wish, although > there's no discussion since there's no way to get to that address. Cool. How will this mailing list be used? Will comments raised on that list be taken into account before or after a license is deemed open source? How will comments from that list be taken into account? I trust every post from the first will be publically archived? > > * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is > > currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in > > the license'', or something similar. > One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place. > It's simply not done. http://bugs.debian.org/ http://developer.redhat.com/bugzilla/index.phtml http://www.mozilla.org/bugs/ http://www.be.com/developers/bugs/index.html It is to done. Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in correcting those mistakes. > > * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status. > Will be done. Any other demands? Put a link to firstname.lastname@example.org on the `Roster of the Board' page at www.opensource.org. Replace the <a href="mailto:esr">mail us</a> links with links to email@example.com. Talk to the SPI membership (firstname.lastname@example.org / email@example.com), or the SPI board (firstname.lastname@example.org) and work out some way of dealing with the "Open Source is a trademark of OSI/SPI" thing. This is getting beyond a joke, and may be starting to hurt our case. Unfortunately, OSI hasn't made any concessions towards SPI ever, and SPI hasn't yet been given much reason to think OSI is really competent to own it. Or that's my take on it anyway. I think the most politic way of dealing with this is to let SPI own it, and let OSI manage it with no/negligble interference. You, and everyone else in SPI might think differently. Those would be my demands. I'd also like to see OSI keep a record of licenses that are open source, and ones that aren't on the opensource.org pages; ideally with some discussion of what's good about them and what's not. Thanks, by the way. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: PGP signature