Subject: Re: OSD#5 needs a patch?
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 09 Oct 2003 12:24:10 -0700

Chuck Swiger <chuck@codefab.com> writes:

> By this you mean that you do not see any particular problem with
> Sean's license "being incompatible with the GPL by it's own terms",
> and that you view his license as being OSD-compliant?

Very few people thought that Sean's license was not OSD-compliant.  I
can only recall one.  I argued against the license, but I said right
from the start that I thought it was OSD-compliant.

Much of the discussion was on the broader, and far more political,
issue of whether the OSI should approve it even assuming that it was
OSD-compliant.

That is, is the OSI a neutral organization which just certifies that
licenses meet the OSD, or is it the advocacy organization described on
the opensource.org web page, one which is ``dedicated to managing and
promoting the Open Source Definition for the good of the community,
specifically through the OSI Certified Open Source Software
certification mark and program.''

Obviously there can be many disagreements over just what is ``the good
of the community,'' but it may be that even before those
disagreements, we need to settle the disagreement about what type of
organization the OSI is.

Ian
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3